Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

FOREIGN SEAMEN.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the collision which took place in the North Sea between the oil tanker "Helka," owned by the Empire Steamship Company, and the German liner "Pretoria"; that the only British rating aboard the "Helka" was the wireless operator; that her master was a Latvian and the remainder were composed of foreigners; and what action will he take to see that all ships on the British register shall carry British crews?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am informed that the facts as to the composition of the crew of the steamship "Helka" were as stated in the question. Legislation requiring the universal employment of British officers and men in United Kingdom ships would not be likely to increase the employment of British officers and seamen, but would probably lead to the transfer of some ships from the register.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this trade there are only 17 British ships? Do the Board of Trade Regulations not, in fact, lay down that at least the captain and the wireless operator should be British, whereas in this case the skipper was Latvian?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that that is a fact, but there is an exception to this provision for ships which are trading completely abroad, and this ship was of that class.

Mr. Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that, in the event of war, if foreign seamen in British ships

under the British Register got control of our coast system, this country would be landed in a very serious position?

Mr. Stanley: I am always ready to consider matters of that kind, and one of the things which I have to consider is that a ship on the British Register would, in an emergency, be liable to be taken over as a British ship.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the duty of the Government to see that unemployed British seamen are given an opportunity of employment on British vessels?

Mr. Stanley: We make every effort in that direction.

UNITED STATES COMPETITION.

Colonel Ropner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Government of the United States of America intends to subsidise the construction of a fleet of 95 vessels by a grant of £32,000,000 in addition to a substantial sum from the Maritime Commission's revolving fund of £40,800,000; and whether, as this action is inconsistent with a policy of either freer or fair trade between this country and the United States of America, he will so inform the Government of the United States of America or consider the advisability of making an equal grant to that section of the British mercantile marine which will suffer most from this form of economic nationalism?

Mr. Stanley: I have seen recent statements in the Press in the sense of the first part of the question, but I have not yet received official information. With regard to the second part, the position will be watched but I am not at present prepared to express any view on the matter.

OIL FUEL.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary for Mines how much oil is used annually by ships of the mercantile marine; what are the sources of supply; and how much tonnage is required for its import?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): As regards the first part of the question, the only information available is that the quantity of oil fuel shipped in this country for the use of ships, etc., of all nationalities engaged in foreign and


in coastwise trade amounted in 1936 to 343,124,000 gallons. The information asked for in the second and third parts of the question is not available.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman regard it as of the first importance to satisfy himself that there is enough tonnage under the British flag to guarantee the necessary imports of oil?

Captain Crookshank: That may be so, but it does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any announcement on the discussions which have taken placce at the Imperial Conference with regard to the conclusion of an Anglo-American trade pact?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot usefully add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on 8th June, and to what I said in the Debate on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill on 9th June.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the widespread interest in the discussions, which, I take it, have been going on, can the right hon. Gentleman not give us a little more than this scanty information?

Mr. Stanley: I quite realise the interest taken by hon. Members, and I shall always be glad to give the House any information which I think I can give without prejudicing the course of the negotiations. I know that hon. Members realise that negotiations of this kind are difficult and necessarily confidential, and would not want any disclosure which might make matters more difficult.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any estimate of the present balance of trade for the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: The excess of imports over exports of merchandise in the trade of the United Kingdom during the first five months of 1937 was £154.4 million. It is not practicable to furnish, for periods

other than a calendar year, an estimate of the invisible items entering into the balance of payments.

OSLO AGREEMENT.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the Government's declarations in favour of the lowering of economic barriers, he has yet expressed his approval of the Oslo Agreement signed recently at the Hague; whether the Government intend to initiate negotiations with a view to adhering to this convention; and whether they will, in any case, abstain from any action which might hinder the success of the agreement?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received the text of the Oslo Trade Agreement; and whether the suppression of quotas on certain commodities in the present customs tariff is likely to be of benefit to British exporters?

Mr. Stanley: I have received the text of this agreement, and it is hoped to publish it in the Board of Trade Journal on Thursday next. His Majesty's Government are considering the agreement in all its aspects, and meanwhile I am unable to make a detailed statement on the subject. I would add, however, that information has been received from the Netherlands Government and the Belgian Government that the facilities granted by them under the agreement will be extended to imports from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Shinwell: While the Government are making up their minds, may we have an assurance that there will be no rigid interpretation of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause?

Mr. Stanley: That is another question, which, perhaps, the hon. Member will put down.

Mr. Shinwell: Then may ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has seen the last part of my question?

Mr. Stanley: Before I give any answer to it, it would be better if I had time to study the actual text of the agreement.

Mr. H. G. Williams: As long as the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause is operated, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we get all the advantage we can from it?

Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement in the "Times" that considerable benefits will accrue——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bellenger: May I put the supplementary question in a different way? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is stated that some benefits will accrue to British exporters under this agreement, and does he agree with that suggestion?

Mr. Stanley: It will be better, before I answer that question, that I should have an opportunity of studying the text of the agreement, as I said I was going to do.

Mr. Leach: If the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of reducing trade barriers, why does not he reduce them?

POISONOUS GAS (EXPORT).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any poison gas has been exported from the United Kingdom since January, 1936; and, if so, whether he will specify the persons to whom such poison gas was despatched and the total amount so exported?

Mr. Stanley: The desired information is not available, as exports of poisonous gas are not separately recorded in the United Kingdom trade returns. There is, however, no reason to think that there has been any export trade in poisonous gas for military use in the period covered by the question.

Mr. Henderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that this country should have nothing to do with trade in poison gas, and can His Majesty's Government not take steps to prohibit the export of poisonous gas for any purpose?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member must realise that there are several gases which are termed poisonous, and which have a very wide and legitimate commercial use.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the discussions have now been completed with the various trade interests concerned in the proposed amendments necessary to carry out the recommendations made in the

report of the Committee on the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and, in view of the uncertainty that prevails in this industry, can he now make a statement on the Government's proposals?

Mr. Stanley: On nth June I received representatives of the various trade interests and placed before them suggestions for their consideration. As soon as their comments have been considered, the Government will be in a position to reach a final decision.

Mr. Day: In view of the fact that this Act comes to an end at the end of this year and of the difficulty which British film users are experiencing in arranging their future programmes, can something not be done to facilitate a decision in the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I think I am right in saying that the Act does not come to an end till next March or April. We have clearly got that time-table in mind when we are thinking of the drafting of a Bill.

SPAIN (MINERAL SUPPLIES).

Sir Hugh Seely: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the supplies of minerals from the Spanish mines in the territory controlled by General Franco are being exported to British customers or are being diverted to Germany and Italy; and whether iron-ore supplies from the territory controlled by the Basque Government are still being exported to this country?

Mr. Stanley: There have been some diversions to Germany and Italy of part of the minerals produced by the mines in the territory controlled by General Franco. Such difficulties as at present exist are being examined in relation to informal assurances received from General Franco's administration that, as far as territory within his control is concerned, there will be no interference in supplies of minerals to the United Kingdom. No substantial complaint has been received regarding supplies of iron-ore from territories controlled by the Basque Government.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade the Government's proposals, if any, for dealing with the position of the Lancashire cotton trade?

Mr. Stanley: Certain representations made by the Lancashire cotton industry are being considered, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

Mr. Burke: In view of the fact that the industry is so sectionalised that it will take time to evolve a plan, can the Minister give us an assurance that consideration will be given?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will realise that I have not been very long at this Department, but this question is one with which I was very long connected and one which I want to investigate personally. I can assure the hon. Member that I will take no more time over it than is absolutely necessary.

Mr. Clynes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that representatives acting for the cotton industry have repeatedly appealed to the Government in the last five or six years to take effective action, and does he not think that some earlier statements should be made to the House?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am referring to a deputation which visited my predecessor some weeks ago and laid some definite considerations before him.

Mr. Clynes: Was not that deputation one of a number which recently approached the Government, in addition to the memorial which was sent to the Board of Trade?

Mr. Stanley: The particular deputation and the composition of it were rather unusual, in that it represented more fully all the cotton interests of Lancashire.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS PRICES.

Mr. W. H. Green: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to implement the findings of the Joint Committee on Gas Prices by legislation; and when such legislation is likely to be introduced into the House?

Mr. Stanley: The report of the Joint Committee is under consideration, and I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

STRENGTH.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Regular and Territorial Armies are still short of men; and, if so, by how many?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The Regular Army is short of 23,760 other ranks, and the Territorial Army of 46,641 other ranks.

Captain Macnarama: Are matters improving or going back?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They are not going back.

PAY (STOPPAGES).

Captain Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the decision that soldiers should not be burdened with stoppages, there are still any regiments which insist on men baying articles of clothing or equipment and their wearing such articles instead of the issued pattern?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Special instructions have been given that soldiers shall be protected from unauthorised expense on account of Regimental customs.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Mr. E. Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the wives of soldiers serving overseas cannot afford to live decently out of the pay allotted to them; that many wives of soldiers are making applications to public assistance committees and are being relieved at the expense of the local rates; and will he make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The enlistment of married men under the age of 26 years is forbidden, and unmarried soldiers are fully aware that if they marry below this age they will not receive marriage allowance.

Mr. Dunn: Would the Minister consider amending the Army Regulations so as to make a soldier a free man, able to marry if he chooses; and will he grant marriage and family allowances irrespective of age?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The soldier enlists under well-known conditions. I am always prepared to give the same consideration to these proposals as has been given in the past.

Mr. Graham White: Will the cessation of stoppages in respect of men serving abroad, recently announced, enable men serving in India to receive their pay the moment they reach India?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is repeating the question which I have already answered.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, no matter how well a regulation may be known, if it is detrimental it ought to be removed?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Of course, there are two views upon this subject. A soldier is bound, by his conditions of service, to be separated for a long period from his wife, and an appeal is made to unmarried men under 26 years of age to enlist on those conditions.

SOLDIERS' FAMILIES (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements or provisions are in force in the Army for the purpose of providing medical attention for the families of men serving in His Majesty's Forces?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the answer is a long one, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Does the answer state whether the families of men at military stations are provided with hospital treatment?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, that matter is dealt with in the answer.

Following is the answer:

The families of soldiers on the married quarters roll are afforded medical attendance as a privilege so far as facilities are available from a military source. At practically all military stations there is a military medical officer or employed civilian medical practitioner whose duties include medical attendance on soldiers' families. If unfit to attend the medical inspection room, families on the married quarters roll may be attended in their quarters provided they reside within a radius of one mile from a point fixed by the General Officer Commanding (usually the medical inspection room). At certain stations, where the strength of the garrison is large in comparison with the civil population, there is a military

families hospital to which the families of soldiers on the married quarters roll may be admitted. At stations where there is no military families hospital, a member of the family of a soldier on the married quarters roll may, in special circumstances, be admitted to a civil hospital at the cost of Army Funds.

Families of soldiers not on the married quarters roll may also have such facilities as are available, but they are not eligible to be visited at their residences by a medical officer. They may, under the special authority of the General Officer Commanding, be admitted to a military families hospital on payment of one shilling a day.

CHURCH PARADES.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in addition to his other changes designed to make service in the Army more attractive to recruits, he will abolish the present practice of compulsory church parades?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not persuaded that to vary the traditional practice common to the three Services in this matter would have the effect suggested. Men are not compelled to attend services of denominations other than their own, and instructions have been issued to reduce formalities connected with inspections which precede the church parade.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he wishes to popularise the Army, the abolition of these compulsory church parades would be extremely popular with the private soldiers and noncommissioned officers?

Mr. Speaker: rose——

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. Was not that a proper supplementary question, and may I not have an answer to it?

Mr. Speaker: It is clearly a matter of opinion.

ALDERSHOT TATTOO.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information in connection with the damage done by the thunderstorm on Thursday last at the Aldershot tattoo to the Coldstream Guards' scarlet tunics and costumes; and who will pay for the damage done?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No particular damage was done, and no expense falls upon the soldier or the public.

MILITARY HOSPITAL, GIBRALTAR.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the normal hospital staff at Gibraltar is too small to be able to cope with 35 unexpected patients, or whether there were other reasons, and, if so, of what nature, for the despatch of four nurses to Gibraltar to nurse the wounded from the "Deutschland"?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The staff of the Military Hospital, Gibraltar, is adequate to deal with a normal number of patients. The 55 casualties from the "Deutschland" were abnormal.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LIQUOR TRADE (TEMPORARY LICENCES).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent local authorities exercise powers under the Scottish Local Veto Act to establish or allow licensed premises at fairs, show-grounds, or exhibitions in areas where the people have voted no licence?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): While the general returns furnished by licensing courts do not specifically relate to Temperance Act areas, I understand from inquiries made that comparatively few hotel or restaurant certificates under Section 3 (1) of that Act or special permissions under Section 4o of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, have been granted in no-licence areas.

Mr. Davidson: Can I have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that any applications for licences in respect of shows or exhibitions of this kind in areas where the people have voted "dry" will be examined very carefully, in view of the desire of the people in the area?

Mr. Wedderburn: They are examined carefully.

EAST OF SCOTLAND MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the petition of the Annandale and

Eskdale branch of the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation presenting reasons why they should be included in the eastern region instead of the southwest; and whether he is prepared to grant the producers' request?

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend has received the petition in question. The representations made will be fully considered in the examination of the recommendations of the Milk Re-organisation Commission, but pending decisions on the Commission's main recommendations it would be premature to consider the hypothetical question of regional boundaries.

HOUSING.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that over 250,000 houses are still required to replace unfit dwellings in Scotland and that, owing to the present condition of the building trade, it will not be possible to erect more than some 25,000 houses per annum, he can state what special steps he proposes to take to encourage temporary reconstruction and reconditioning in order to improve the present position?

Mr. Wedderburn: In view of the present pressure on the supply of building trade labour in Scotland, my right hon. Friend is not satisfied, on the information at present before him, that a policy of temporary reconstruction and reconditioning would make any material contribution to housing needs, but, following representations made to him by the Convention of Royal Burghs, he is making further inquiries on the subject.

Sir T. Moore: Does not my hon. Friend consider it lamentable that, in this vital part of our social services, Scotland should lag behind England?

Mr. Wedderburn: The question relates to reconditioning, and I ought to point out that this is likely for the time being to reduce the available accommodation, and also to divert a great deal of labour from the building of new houses, which must be our principal object.

Mr. Kennedy (for Mr. Westwood): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of authorities who have indicated that they cannot proceed with their housing schemes because of the rising costs and the need for increased housing grants; the number of authorities who


have stopped schemes of building and the total number of houses involved; and what action, if any, he proposes to meet the demands of the local authorities?

Mr. Wedderburn: Eight local authorities have indicated to the Department of Health that they propose to postpone further housing developments involving approximately 1,584 houses. With regard to the latter part of the question, I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on 23rd March in reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers).

Mr. Davidson: Cannot we have an assurance from the Scottish Office that at least they will consult these local authorities, with a view to removing these difficulties in regard to housing?

Mr. Wedderburn: We have been in continual consultation with them for several months, and that has been stated in reply to questions several times.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he was again getting in touch with the representatives of the operatives, may we have some indication when a further statement on this matter is likely to be made?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that it would be useful for me to say anything on that point until a definite decision has been arrived at, but I have every reason to be hopeful from the attitude which is being taken by the various authorities.

EDUCATION, GLASGOW.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of classes in Glasgow schools with 50 or more pupils?

Mr. Wedderburn: At 31st May, 1937, there were in Glasgow 262 classes with 50 pupils, and 134 with over 50 pupils, on the roll.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of school children medically examined in Glasgow up to the last available date; the number of medical examiners employed: and the total number of children termed defective?

Mr. Wedderburn: The number of school children medically examined in Glasgow during the year 1935–36 at systematic routine inspection was 54,882. The medical staff comprises 16 whole-time and one part-time medical officers. The number of children found to have irremediable defects was 2,359, while 44,231 had defects which were more or less readily remediable. A further 15,899 children were specially examined at the request of parents, teachers, etc. Most of these children were found to have some defect requiring attention. There was also a reexamination of 27,005 children who had been found to have defects at previous examinations.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the serious number of defective children in Glasgow is caused by the poverty of their parents; and will he ask the Minister of Labour to give Glasgow all the assistance he can in the future?

Mr. Mathers: Does the Under-Secretary recognise the connection between these conditions and those to which he referred in answer to Question No. 25?

HORSES (GRASS SICKNESS).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the new outbreaks of grass-sickness among horses in different parts of Scotland; and whether he can make any statement on the steps now being taken to abate the scourge?

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend is aware that grass sickness, which is a seasonal disease, is again becoming prevalent in certain parts of Scotland. The disease has been the subject of intensive research over a long period by the Animal Diseases Research Association, Edinburgh, and in view of its economic importance the Government, during the current financial year, have made a grant to the Association of £9,800 for the extension of their premises, and a further grant of £3,200 for an intensification of their research into the subject. This large-scale investigation now in progress is not sufficiently advanced for results to be known.

WATER SUPPLY, LERWICK.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any communication from the town


council of Lerwick regarding the proposed conversion of the burgh's rapid chemical filtration plant into water strainers; whether he is aware that the raw water supply contains an excessive quantity of peat and vegetable debris, and is therefore unsuitable for straining; that there is strong local feeling in Lerwick against the proposed conversion; and whether he will cause impartial inquiries to be made into the matter in the interests of public health?

Mr. Wedderburn: No recent communication has been received from the town council. An investigation was made by officers of the Department of Health for Scotland in May, 1935. If an application is made by the town council to the Department in connection with any proposed alteration of the filtration plant, the question whether further inquiry is necessary will be carefully considered.

CUMBERLAND HOUSE, ABERDEEN.

Mr. Hannah: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can make any statement about the preservation of Cumberland House, in Aberdeen?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): I understand that the site, part of which is occupied by Provost Skene's House (Cumberland House) has been considered by the town council of Aberdeen for a new Town House, but that the possibility of extending the existing Town House is now being investigated. If, on investigation, this latter course proves to be feasible, it will, I hope, be possible to preserve Provost Skene's House, which is an important example of seventeenth century Scottish domestic architecture.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not the fact that we have a good deal to learn from Germany in this matter?

MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (STAFF).

Mr. Mathers (for Mr. R. Gibson): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of attendants and nurses on the staffs of, or employed at, mental institutions in Scotland as at 31st May, 1937; how many of these individuals had a tour of duty extending to 84 or more hours, 78 and under 84 hours, 72 and under 78 hours, 66 and under 72 hours, 60 and under 66 hours, 54 and under 60 hours, 48 and under 54 hours,

42 and under 48 hours, and under 42 hours wer week, respectively; what are the corresponding figures for the Smithston institution in Greenock; and whether lie has any statement to make regarding the introduction of legislation to restrict the working week of such individuals to a maximum of 48 hours?

Mr. Wedderburn: The information desired is not immediately available but steps have been taken to obtain it, and I will communicate with the hon. and learned Member when it is received.

AYRSHIRE CONSTABULARY.

Mr. Maxton (for Mr. McGovern): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reasons for the recent decision of the police committee in Ayr in which they passed a vote of no confidence in the chief constable; and whether he will inquire into the reasons for considerable discontent in this force?

Sir T. Moore: Before this question is answered, may I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it would not be to the advantage of the House that Members should concentrate on matters affecting their own constituencies, rather than putting questions affecting other constituencies?

Mr. Speaker: There is no actual rule of that kind.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that no vote of this nature has been passed by the police committee. The suggestion contained in the second part of the question that there is considerable discontent in the force is being brought to the notice of the police authority who are responsible for the efficient maintenance of the force.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. MCGOVERN:

31. To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Chief Constable Duffus, of the Ayrshire constabulary, had his retiral sanctioned by the police committee, and has not yet retired, is over 61 years of age and is serving in contravention of Section 1 of the Police Pensions Act, 1921; and whether he can state the reason for his failure to retire, also that of Superintendent Leslie, of Irvine, who is over 62 years of age?

Sir T. Moore: I beg to ask question No. 31.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to put another hon. Member's question without having been asked by that hon. Member to do so?

Mr. Speaker: Strictly, the rule is that an hon. Member who is not present should ask another hon. Member to put his question for him.

Mr. Buchanan: Seeing that an hon. Member should not put a question without having secured permission, may I ask whether that has been done in this case?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot say.

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the circumstances in which certain hon. Members occasionally refrain fromputting questions which stand in their names on the Order Paper, is it not desirable that it should be made clear that no hon. Member should put the question without the assent of the hon. Member who is absent?

Sir T. Moore: Since the hon. Member who put down this question and attached his name to it, is not here to put it himself, and since he has not considered the rights, or duties, or privileges of the hon. Member who represents that constituency, as to whether he should put that question, have I not the right to put the question for him?

Mr. Buchanan: May I ask for an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maxton.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to ask Question No. 31.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that Superintendent and Deputy-Chief Constable Duffus, who is 61 years of age and had his pension approved in May this year by the police authority, has had his period of service extended in terms of Section 1 (1) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, on the ground that the extension is in the interests of efficiency, and that the extension of Superintendent Leslie's period of service beyond the age of 60 was made on the same statutory ground. I understand that it is anticipated that both officers will shortly retire.

Sir T. Moore: May I raise a further question on the point of Order and ask for your help and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and other hon. Members? If the hon. Member who put down this question had been aware of local conditions, he would never have put the question, because he would have been aware of the facts.

Mr. Speaker: No point of Order arises from that.

Mr. Maxton: Further to the point of Order. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes to become a Member of our party, he must make his application in the ordinary way, and we will consider it.

Mr. H. G. Williams: On that point of Order——

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of Order.

Mr. Williams: I wish to raise a fresh point of Order. I understand that it is your Ruling on the practice of the House that an hon. Member makes himself responsible for the accuracy of statements he makes in a question. May I ask what penalty attaches to an hon. Member who makes inaccurate statements?

Mr. Speaker: The inaccuracy must first be proved.

GLASGOW POLICE FORCE (PENSIONED OFFICERS).

Mr. Maxton (for Mr. McGovern): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of constables, sergeants, inspectors and superintendents of the Glasgow Police Force who are at present drawing retiral pensions; the amount of pension for each rank; the number of each rank who are still employed in civil employment; and whether he proposes to prohibit these men from engaging in ordinary civil employment?

Mr. Wedderburn: On 31st May, 1937, 419 constables, 136 sergeants, 118 inspectors and 20 superintendents who had retired from the Glasgow Police Force were in receipt of police pensions. The approximate average pensions for constables, sergeants, inspectors and superintendents were £138, £185, £227 and £351 respectively. Information as to the number of pensioners in civil employment is not available. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WELSH ANTHRACITE.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of shots fired in anthracite coal mines in South Wales in the year 1936; what was the total tonnage of coal raised at these collieries in the same year; and whether the number of shots fired and tonnage raised were greater or less than in 1935?

Captain Crookshank: Using round figures, during 1936, 2,555,000 shots were fired in anthracite mines in South Wales, and 5,581,000 tons of saleable anthracite were produced. Both figures were lower than in 1935, the decreases being 128,000 shots and 293,000 tons.

Mr. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the representations made to him that the sale of Welsh anthracite in the Dominion of Canada is being seriously prejudiced because of the excessive profits made by the distributors in the Dominion and also because other coals, including German coals, are being sold as Welsh anthracite, to the detriment of Welsh coal; and, in view of the importance of this trade to the South Wales anthracite coalfield, whether he will take this matter up with the responsible authorities in the Dominion?

Captain Crookshank: These and other matters connected with the sale of anthracite in Canada have been the subject of investigation by a Royal Commission appointed by His Majesty's Government in Canada. I understand that the report of the Commission, of which a copy has been placed in the Library of the House, is under consideration by the Dominion Government.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman, since the publication of that report, had any consultation with the Dominion Government on this matter, in view of the fact that there is considerable controversy in Canada on these points, which are having an adverse effect on the sale of Welsh anthracite?

Captain Crookshank: I have already stated that the report is now under the consideration of the Dominion Government. I cannot, of course, go further than that.

Mr. Griffiths: May I repeat my supplementary question? What I desire to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman is whether he or any member of his Department has been in consultation with the Dominion Government since the publication of the report. May I have a reply to that question?

Captain Crookshank: Really these matters, which concern another part of the Empire, must be left primarily to the Government concerned. Unless we hear something from the Government of Canada, I do not think it would be proper for us to take action on the Royal Corn-mission's report.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his Department does not concern itself with a matter which is having a very serious effect on the export trade of this country?

Captain Crookshank: All of these matters are, of course, matters of concern to us.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the high prices which are being charged for Welsh anthracite by the distributive agencies in Canada are driving Welsh anthracite out of the Canadian market; and will he not do something in the matter?

EXPORTS.

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantities and the average prices, f.o.b., of coal exported from the Bristol Channel ports for the month of May, 1936, and the corresponding month, 1937?

Captain Crookshank: The quantity of coal exported from the Bristol Channel ports during May, 1936, was 1,185,680 tons and its average declared value per ton f.o.b. 20s. 6d. The comparable figures for May, 1937, were 1,251,357 tons and 20s. 7½., per ton respectively.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of bituminous and anthracite coals, respectively, exported from the British coalfields since 1928, each year to date, and countries of disposal?

Captain Crookshank: I am having a statement prepared which I will send to the hon. Member.

ELDERLY MINERS (PENSIONS).

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information as to the progress made in the proposed pension scheme for elderly miners in the South Wales coalfield?

Captain Crookshank: I understand that the proposed scheme has been prepared and agreed by the Joint Sub-committee appointed by the owners and workmen's representatives on the Conciliation Board, and that the committee are at present in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in regard to the effect of the proposed pension on public assistance grants. Pending a decision on this matter, the scheme has not yet been submitted to the individual colliery companies or to the individual al workmen for approval and confirmation.

Mr. Davies: May I ask whether representations also have been made to his right hon. Friend the Minister for Labour that he should exercise his influence with the Unemployment Assistance Board not to apply the means test Regulations to any pensions that may be paid to elderly miners?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, I think they have, but, of course, questions can be addressed to the Minister.

GERMAN EXPORTS (SUBSIDIES).

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines the total subsidy per ton of coal exported from Germany during 1936 and for the first five months of this year; and whether any negotiations are now proceeding with the object of bringing about a discontinuance of subsidies on export coal?

Captain Crookshank: There is no uniform rate of subsidy per ton of coal exported from Germany. It is estimated, however, that in 1936 the gross proceeds of the levy of the Rhenish-Westphalian Syndicate amounted to about RM.374 million, and in the first quarter of 1937 to about R M.ro5 million. Later information is not available. These sums, less expenses for administration, were, therefore, available for assisting the syndicate's sales of coal in contested markets both inland and export, but in what proportion is not known to me. With regard to the second part of the

question, the Government have repeatedly stated that they regard an international marketing agreement as the appropriate solution of the problems of the coal export trade, but, as I informed the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on 23rd March, this is a matter for the trade itself.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the increase in the export of coal from Germany during the first four months of this year; that the coal was sold to countries which formerly got their supplies from this country; to what extent this increase in the quantity of coal exported from Germany is attributable to heavy subsidisation; and what steps does he propose to take to protect the British export coal trade?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware of the increase in German coal exports this year. Exports from other European countries including Poland and the United Kingdom have also increased. A discussion of the relative importance of the various factors underlying both the general increase and the proportion in which it has been shared by different countries could hardly be compressed within the limits of a reply to a question. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not clear as to what the hon. Member has in mind. He will recall that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour informed the House on 9th March, the coal industry's request for financial assistance for coal exports has been withdrawn for the time being.

Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the increase in the exports of coal from Germany in the first four months of this year amounts to about 40 per cent., as compared with an increase of only 10 per cent. in the case of this country, and does he not regard that as being of sufficient importance to take immediate steps to help the trade and make some arrangement in order to secure a fair share of export trade for this country?

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make representations to the Foreign Office that, unless effective action is taken, we shall soon lose another important market for British and Welsh coal in Spain?

MIKE ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of boys under 16 years of age injured at mines in Great Britain in 1936?

Captain Crookshank: During 1936, 5,932 persons under 16 years of age were injured and disabled for more than three days by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of mineworkers injured in South Wales and Monmouthshire in 1936?

Captain Crookshank: During 1936, 24,762 persons were injured and disabled for more than three days by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in South Wales and Monmouthshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD PURCHASES.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of gold purchased during the last complete week; the average figure at which it was bought; and whether he has reason to believe that the hoarded gold is now exhausted?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): In reply to the first two parts of the question, it is, as the right hon. Member is aware, contrary to practice to make public the transactions on behalf of the Exchange Equalisation Account. This has been explained to the House many times and I am not prepared to make an exception on the present occasion. In reply to the last part of the question, I should not feel justified in hazarding an opinion.

Colonel Wedgwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the story of Zeus and Danae, and if this stream of gold continues to come from Russia and he continues to accept it, may I ask him when and wherever he is expecting Perseus?

Sir J. Simon: Mythology is always worthy of respect, but it is a very imperfect guide.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (EMBARGO).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer

(1) whether he is aware that the surfeit of gold coming to London can be redistributed throughout the world and British export trade greatly increased by allowing the public issue in London of loans to foreign borrowers, provided that British investors are prepared to lose their savings by uncreditworthy foreign borrowers defaulting again on their obligations as shown in the annual reports of the Council of Foreign Bondholders; and will he consider this aspect of the remedy for unwanted gold as a reply to the demand for raising the embargo on foreign lending;
(2) whether he will, for the guidance of public opinion on the gold surfeit problem, state how many non-British overseas creditworthy would-be borrowers have, during the past 12 months, been refused permission to float public loans in London owing to the embargo on foreign lending; and will he state, without giving names, the approximate total of loans which non-British overseas creditworthy, as distinguished from uncreditworthy, would-be borrowers have been prevented by the embargo from floating in London?

Sir J. Simon: Foreign lending on a large scale would no doubt tend to reduce the movement of gold towards this country, but the possible field for such lending is much restricted at the present time by the absence of creditworthy borrowers. I agree with my hon. Friend that the making of loans to uncreditworthy borrowers is not a process from which good can result. It is, however, the business of the lender to distinguish between creditworthy and uncreditworthy applicants for loans, and it is not a function of the Foreign Transactions Advisory Committee to settle that point. I am not, therefore, in a position to furnish the figures asked for in the second question.

Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider getting rid of the surfeit of gold by abolishing the means test and increasing old age pensions?

Mr. Emmott: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to recent observations by Mr. Keynes in the Press on the question whether there is in fact in this country an excess of gold in relation to our requirements or our possible requirements?

Sir J. Simon: I try to read all important letters.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he contemplates any investigation into the future burden of taxation, having regard to the slowing-up of the growth of population and the automatic increase in the cost of social services consequential upon the increasing proportion of elderly persons in the population?

Sir J. Simon: This is one of the important questions which is kept constantly under review, but my hon. Friend will hardly expect me to deal with it in detail by way of question and answer.

Mr. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to impose any check on the growth of public expenditure in view of these dangers ahead of us?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, what was the acreage of land acquired for planting and the names of the districts and number of persons employed since 1929, each year to date?

Colonel Sir George Courthope: The answer contains tables of figures so, with the permission of the House, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The acreage of land acquired by the Forestry Commissioners for planting since 1929 and the average number of persons employed were:





Acres.
Number of persons.


1929
…
…
34,317
3,019


1930
…
…
34,360
3,431


1931
…
…
48,858
3,317


1932
…
…
46,437
3,026


1933
…
…
15,335
3,138


1934
…
…
28,886
3,268


1935
…
…
14,040
3,509


1936
…
…
18,244
3,794

Owing to the large number of acquisitions each year since 1929, including many small additions to existing units, it is not feasible to state within a reasonable compass the districts where land was acquired in each of those years, but the following table shows the approximate acreage of plantable land which has been acquired since 1929 in each county by the Forestry Commission:

County.


Acres.


England and Wales.





Bedford
…
…
200


Berks
…
…
100


Brecon
…
…
1,400


Cardigan
…
…
6,500


Carmarthen
…
…
6,700


Carnarvon
…
…
5,500


Cornwall
…
…
1,800


Cumberland
…
…
11,100


Denbigh
…
…
600


Derby
…
…
100


Devon
…
…
4,900


Durham
…
…
50


Glamorgan
…
…
6,200


Glos.
…
…
400


Hants
…
…
3,500


Hereford
…
…
900


Kent
…
…
2,100


Lancs.
…
…
800


Lincs.
…
…
2,100


Merioneth
…
…
14,600


Monmouth
…
…
1,900


Montgomery
…
…
6,000


Northants
…
…
4,200


Norfolk
…
…
10,100


Northumberland
…
…
37,400


Notts.
…
…
300


Salop
…
…
600


Somerset
…
…
600


Staffs.
…
…
800


Suffolk
…
…
10,800


Surrey
…
…
50


Sussex
…
…
2,300


Wilts.
…
…
2,100


Yorks.
…
…
5,500


Scotland.





Aberdeen
…
…
13,000


Angus
…
…
300


Argyll
…
…
24,900


Ayrshire
…
…
1,500


Berwick
…
…
900


Dumfries
…
…
1,900


Fife
…
…
1,700


Inverness
…
…
7,600


Kincardine
…
…
4,300


Kirkcudbright
…
…
6,100


Midlothian
…
…
20


Moray
…
…
3,800


Nairn
…
…
200


Peebles
…
…
1,800


Perth
…
…
11,300


Ross
…
…
1,900


Skye, Isle of
…
…
1,700


Stirling
…
…
3,600


Sutherland
…
…
700


Wigtown
…
…
400

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ASSISTANCE (DENTAL TREATMENT).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that local authorities are having to bear the cost of dental treatment to persons in receipt of allowances from the Unemployment Assistance Board; and will he seek to secure an early amendment of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, to enable the board to meet the needs of persons who are receiving allowances from the board?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): Section 38 (4) of the Unemployment Act, 1934, provides that the "needs" to be met by the board under that Section do not include medical needs, which by Section 54 (1) are defined to include dental needs. No amendment of this provision is proposed.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large sums of money are being spent by local authorities, and is it not possible to amend the Act so that the charge for dental treatment can become a national charge?

Mr. Brown: The question has already been decided by Parliament in the Act.

Mr. George Griffiths: When the Bill was discussed in this House, did not the Minister tell us at that Box that the Section would cover this definitely?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps if the hon. Member will read the answer that I have given, he will see that the question is specifically stated. It refers to the Section of the Act.

MINERS (SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the number of coal miners registered as totally unemployed in the Employment Exchanges in South Wales and Monmouthshire at the last convenient date; whether those Exchanges have received any applications for labour from colliery companies that they have not been able to supply; and, if so, what were the reasons?

Mr. E. Brown: On 24th May, 1937, the number of insured men aged 18 to 64 in the coal mining industry classification recorded as wholly unemployed in South Wales and Monmouthshire was 32,012. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Employment Exchanges have, in general, been able to meet employers' labour requirements from among the workpeople available locally or within daily travelling distance, or, in some cases, by arranging for the transfer of workpeople from other parts of the coalfield. Some difficulty has, however, been experienced in certain districts in supplying men in the lower paid wage groups because of the cost of lodgings or daily travelling.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that there are 32,000 unemployed miners in South Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House and the country that the statement recently made that there need be no unemployed miners in South Wales is well wide of the facts?

Mr. Brown: I should like to see that statement.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement made by the chairman of one of the most important colliery companies in South Wales to the effect that there need be no unemployed miners in South Wales now, yet the right hon. Gentleman informs the House and the country that there are 32,000 miners available for work on the the register of the employment exchanges?

Mr. Brown: I have read a number of speeches on the subject, and I have been asked for the facts, and I have stated them.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Labour whether, taking the decline in the numbers of agricultural workers on the land during the last three years, the majority have terminated their employment on the land as a result of the absence of need for their services or whether they have gone into better-paid activities; and, if so, whether he can give any indication as to the type of industry which is specially drawing off land workers.

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

TRAINEES, LEICESTER.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of trainees for whom accommodation is available at the training centre in Gipsy Lane, Leicester; and the parts of the country from which the trainees have been drawn, in the main, to date.

Mr. E. Brown: The Government training centre, Gipsy Lane, Leicester, provides training places for 432 men. Of about 900 men admitted since the centre was opened in July, 1936, about 520 have been drawn from the North of England, about 170 from Scotland, about 100 from Wales, and about 100 from the Midlands.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to amend the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, with a view to the creation of an Agricultural Finance Corporation, Limited, or some similar title, with an authorised and issued capital in £1 shares of £100, based on the same principle as the Railway Finance Corporation, Limited, with powers to issue debenture stock, 1953–54, 2½ per cent. guaranteed, for £25,000,000, guaranteed as to principal and interest by His Majesty's Treasury, with a view to providing long-term credits to assist the increased production of home-grown foodstuffs?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend's proposal does not commend itself to my right hon. Friend. I should, however, add that the question of short-term credit is being examined by the National Farmers' Union in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware of the fact, and do the Government think that it is fair to give to the railways money at 2½ per cent. and make another rate for the farmer, charging him 5 per cent.? Is it not a screaming breach of equity?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question is quite out of order.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED NORTH ATLANTIC AIR ROUTE.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any change has taken place in the working arrangement between Pan-American Airways and Imperial Airways in connection with the proposed North Atlantic air route since his announcement that a joint scheme by these companies had been arrived at?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No, Sir.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Has the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman been drawn to the announcement by the Department at Washington that there is an

alternative air route being formed in opposition to the Imperial Airways North Atlantic air route; and is he aware of it?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That is another matter. The question of the hon. Member refers to the working arrangement between Pan-American Airways and Imperial Airways, in which no alteration has been made.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If no alteration has been made, what is to be the position of Imperial Airways if America forms an alternative route?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REFORM.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government have reached any decision as to when the measure affecting electoral reform will be submitted to the House; and is he in a position to make a statement on this subject?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): No legislation affecting electoral reform is under consideration by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (LEPROSY).

Major Carver: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any action is being taken to combat leprosy in Uganda, where this disease is reported to be on the increase; and if he will induce the administration there to go more fully into the matter and have a compulsory segregation of patients and so endeavour to stop the spread of this malignant disease?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The most recent reports of the Medical Department of Uganda do not, I am glad to say, bear out the opinion that leprosy is increasing in Uganda. The Government has established leper colonies, which are looked after by missionary societies on behalf of Government, and provides treatment for all who are willing to attend. It is not considered that compulsory segregation of lepers would be effective in checking the disease, since wide concealment would almost certainly result. The administration is fully alive to the importance of taking all practicable measures for the control of the disease.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (CLOCKS).

Mr. Magnay: asked the First Commissioner of Works what is the number of clocks in the House of Commons; whether they are all hand-wound; and whether he will favourably consider the electrical synchronisation of them?

Sir P. Sassoon: There are about 265 clocks in the Palace of Westminster: they are all hand-wound. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Magnay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a most untimely business not to have the synchronisation of all the clocks, seeing that the master clock of the Empire is on the premises, and that the other clocks should take their time from Big Ben?

Sir P. Sassoon: I think that the clocks in the Palace of Westminster were put in before synchronisation came into being.

Captain Gunston: Are the clocks all wound by one person, and is it a full-time job?

Mr. Macquisten: If they were to be synchronised, would that have the effect of shortening hon. Member's speeches?

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING CONSTRUCTION INVESTMENT COMPANY.

Mr. Shinwell (for Mr. T. Johnston): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has now examined the share-pushing activities of the persons who have operated the concern known as the Building Construction Investment Company; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps in this case?

Mr. Stanley: A winding-up order in respect of the Building Construction Investment Company was made on 12th April last; and as a result of the meeting of creditors and contributories held on 20th May the Official Receiver was appointed liquidator of the company. The affairs of the company are still under investigation by the Official Receiver, who hopes to be in a position to report the result of his investigations to me shortly. In the meantime I regret that I cannot make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' DUTIES.

Sir Hugh Seely (for Mr. Mander): asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the duties to be performed respectively by the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The Lord President of the Council is in charge of the work of the Privy Council Office. He is also responsible for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and for the work of the Medical Research and Agricultural Research Councils, which are independent of the Privy Council Office and take instructions direct from the Lord President. In addition to these administrative duties, the present holder of the office bears the responsibilities which attach to him as a member of the Cabinet, and in his further capacity as Leader of the House of Lords is also responsible for the conduct of Government business in that House.
The Lord Privy Seal has no administrative duties to perform in that capacity, but the present holder of the office, as a member of the Cabinet who is free from departmental ties, will be able to devote himself to the work of Cabinet Committees and to such other Cabinet or Ministerial business as the Prime Minister may find it advisable and convenient to delegate to him.
The duties of the Chancellor of the Duchy, whose salary is paid out of Duchy revenue and is not a charge on public funds, are primarily to control the management of the Duchy estates and revenues, and, within the County Palatine, to perform various duties which in other counties devolve upon the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. In addition, he will perform a considerable variety of pressing and temporary duties which are not assigned to any particular Minister and to which no salary is attached, such as membership of Government Committees and active assistance in the work of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS.

Captain Harold Balfour (for Mr. Vyvyan Adams): asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the dis-


cussion by the House of Commons of international affairs?

The Prime Minister: I fear that in the state of public business it is not possible to allot a special day for this discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMBASSADORS.

Captain Balfour (for Mr. V. Adams): asked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce legislation to vest Parliament with control over the appointment and service of British ambassadors to foreign States?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that out of the 18 foreign Ambassadors 13 were educated at Eton, and if control of these appointments is to be vested in this House, having regard to the fact that there are 104 Members on the other side who were educated at Eton, would not that deprive the odd five of their jobs?

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Is it not also a fact that such hon. Members of the Opposition as have been at Eton were put on the Front Opposition Bench?

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW TAX PROPOSALS.

Captain Balfour (for Mr. V. Adams): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to divulge the character and details of the tax which is to replace the discarded National Defence Contribution?

Sir J. Simon: My intention is to place on the Order Paper to-morrow the terms of the Ways and Means Resolution, and I propose at the same time to lay a White Paper which will explain more precisely the nature and scope of the proposed tax. The Ways and Means Resolution will be debated in Committee early next week and as soon as the authority of the Ways and Means Resolution has been obtained, I shall at once put down the necessary new Clauses. There will then be a sufficient interval to consider them before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill is resumed.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the White Paper will be available in the Vote Office?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot say at the moment, but I propose to make the White Paper available at the same time as the Ways and Means Resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Sir H. Seely (for Mr. Mander): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of Germans and Italians who have recently returned from Spain to their own country?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): I have no means of estimating these numbers.

Mr. A. Henderson: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the present situation in Bilbao, including the bombing and machine-gunning of civilians in the precincts of the city?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): As the House will be aware, the insurgent army has, during the last few days, resumed the offensive and is pressing its attacks upon the city of Bilbao. While the reports that are at present being received are inevitably fragmentary and indefinite, I understand that the Basque Government is still directing the defence from Bilbao. The evacuation of refugees has continued, and on Sunday last the "Habana" left Bilbao with over 4,400 refugees and proceeded under British naval protection to a French port. Yesterday morning His Majesty's Consul communicated to me a message from the Basque Government to the effect that, owing to the intense bombardment of Bilbao and its suburbs, they were anxious to hasten the evacuation of the civil population. They proposed to make use, for this purpose, of all shipping available in the port and also to charter a foreign liner, and they offered to evacuate at the same time the hostages held by them in the proportion of one prisoner for every 20 refugees. They inquired whether His Majesty's Government would, in these circumstances, continue the protection hitherto afforded, thus rendering possible an accelerated programme. His Majesty's Consul was instructed yesterday evening to inform the Basque Government that on the clear understanding that arrangements for


evacuation would cover only women, children, old men and hostages, such protection as circumstances permitted would continue to be given.
I also received yesterday an appeal from the Basque Government for diplomatic action to prevent the further destruction of the centre of the city pending the evacuation of the civil population. His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye was instructed last night to inform General Franco of this communication and to draw his most urgent attention to it. In the meantime, in view of the military situation, the British merchant ships on the northern coast have been strongly advised by the naval authorities to communicate with their owners before entering the port of Bilbao. In view of the latest developments in the situation at Bilbao, and the increasing risks involved, His Majesty's Consul withdrew from Bilbao this morning on my instructions, with such members of the local British community as were willing to leave.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that the Basque Government have officially alleged that German and Italian aeroplanes are responsible for the air attacks on Bilbao, and in view of that charge is it not desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for an emergency meeting of the League Council?

Mr. Eden: That is a very different question from the one of which the hon. Member gave me notice, and we are, unfortunately, aware that there are a number of foreign aeroplanes on both sides.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that a month ago the late General Mola stated——

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary questions of the hon. Member have nothing to do with his private notice question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister tell us the business for Friday next?

The Prime Minister: In addition to the Ministry of Health Vote we propose to take the Votes for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities, England and Wales, Board of Control, and Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Major John Percival Whiteley, for County of Bucks (Buckingham Division).

BILL PRESENTED.

CANDIDATES' (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) ELECTION DEPOSIT BILL,

"to require candidates at local government elections to deposit a sum of money to be forfeited under certain conditions," presented by Sir William Davison; supported by Sir Reginald Clarry, Sir Reginald Blair, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, Sir Assheton Pownall, Mr. Croom-Johnson, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, and Mr. H. G. Williams; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 5th July, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

TRADE MARKS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Statutory Salaries Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the North Cotswold Rural District Council with reference to the construction of waterworks and the supply of water; and for other purposes." [North Cotswold Rural District Council Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make further and better provision for the improvement health local government and finance of the Urban District of Canvey Island; and for other purposes." [Canvey Island Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]

NORTH COTSWOLD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

CANVEY ISLAND URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to, the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — FACTORIES BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Washing facilities.)

(1) Adequate and suitable facilities for washing (including a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels) conveniently situated shall be provided and maintained in the following factories and for the use of the following persons, that is to say:

(a) in any factory where any employed persons are accustomed to take their meals at the factory, for the use of those persons;
(b) in any factory where there is carried on a process specified by order of the Secretary of State as being of such a dusty, dirty, or offensive nature as to give rise to a special need for the provision of washing facilities, for the use of persons employed in that process;
(c) in any factory constructed, reconstructed, or converted for use as a factory after the commencement of this Act, for the use of the persons employed in that factory; and
(d) in any other factory or department of a factory in which the superintending inspector for the division by order requires such facilities to be provided, being satisfied that a substantial number of the persons employed in the factory or department desire, and would be likely to avail themselves of, the facilities, for the use of such number of persons employed therein as may be specified in the order.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) prescribe, as respects any of the classes of case specified in the foregoing Sub-section, a standard of adequate and suitable washing facilities;
(b) exempt any factory or class or description of factory from the requirement to provide washing facilities where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that factory or class or description of factory, such facilities cannot reasonably be required.

(3) This Section shall come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When I look at this Bill, the long list of Amendments to it, and the intricacies of the Measure, it seems to me that I am fated to be associated with some of the

biggest Bills ever introduced in this House. Indeed, anybody who wishes to write my epitaph might apply to me a somewhat amended version of that written for Sir John Vanbrugh, the architect of Blenheim Palace:
Lie heavy on him, earth, for he laid two enormous Bills on the.
I have, however, every hope that this new Clause will meet with a large measure of general support. It is worth the attention of hon. Members for more reasons than one. It seems to me to be typical of the general attitude which, I believe, has been adopted towards the Bill by all sections of the House. We have tried to proceed by general agreement, whether between the various sections of the House or between the employers and the workers outside, and from the start the Government have been anxious to take into account the general feeling in the Committee and in the House, and, so far as possible, adopt the provisions which the House as a whole seems to desire.
The history of the proposal in the Clause I am moving is this. Under the present Factory Act, speaking generally, facilities can be required for washing only in trades and industries which are liable to special dangers. In the original provision it was found necessary to extend these requirements, and bring into its scope not only dangerous trades, but also trades in which there might be a large amount of dirt and dust. That was the provision before hon. Members in the Standing Committee. In Committee it was found that hon. Members of all parties thought that the scope was too narrow, and that in view of the general rise in the standard of life, which we all very much welcome, it was necessary to extend the scope and to bring within it not only dangerous trades and trades in which there may be a large amount of dust and dirt, but trades and industries generally. The Government gave an undertaking that they would introduce a new Clause on the subject, and this is the new Clause that I am now moving. The House will see that it has now a very general scope. The Clause means that where facilities of this kind are needed and can be reasonably provided, they shall be given. I may say at once that I am in full agreement with the underlying motive of the Clause. We are anxious to recognise the fact that standards are everywhere rising and that a


standard that may have been applicable 10, 20 or 30 years ago, is not applicable to-day.
I was very much interested to read the report of the discussion in the Standing Committee, in which case after case was brought out in which it was quite clear that men and women, very rightly, now wish to have facilities for washing during the hours of their work. They do not like going on working when they are dirty. Further than that, they do not like—and I sympathise with them—going back in the train, omnibus or tube when they have not had a chance of washing. I was very interested to note also that a reference was made to the very wide use that is now made of these facilities wherever they are provided. I remember very well years ago hearing a discussion upon a coal Bill, when I think the proposal was first made that baths should be provided for miners, and when Member after Member got up in the House and said that they would never be used and that if they were used, they would be used only as coal cellars. I have been very interested to find from the conversations that I have had with my advisers that where facilities of that sort are provided, something like 90 per cent. of the men actually use them. That fact shows that where these facilities are provided, they are used. It also shows that the time has come to widen the scope of the provisions that have hitherto existed, and it is on that account that I move this new Clause.
I think hon. Members will find, on reading the provisions of the Clause, that it covers a very wide field, and means that where these facilities can be reasonably provided; they will be provided. It is necessary to have a certain amount of elasticity in dealing with questions of this kind. Hon Members should remember, in connection with this new Clause, and indeed with almost every provision of the Bill, that we are dealing with something like 250,000 of what we call factories, but they range from great undertakings employing thousands of workers to small carpenters' shops or village smithies, and on that account, while we are taking all the steps we can to raise the general standard in this and other directions, we must maintain a certain measure of elasticity; which is provided in the Bill.

3.55 P.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I wish at the outset to welcome the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and to express the hope that that tone will continue throughout the whole of the proceedings on this Bill. In reading the provisions of this Clause, however, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to continue the rather stiff policy of his predecessor. The Government know full well that hon. Members on these benches want this Bill, but I do not want them to exploit that fact. We have not done anything to prevent the passage of the Bill into law, but I must criticise what I will call the timidity of the Government. If hon. Members will look at the Clause closely, they will find that it is not quite as generous as the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. Before coming to the provisions of the Clause, I would like to remind hon. Members that we debated this subject at length in Committee, and that our main criticism of the Government in connection with this Bill can be directed against the new Clause, although, of course, it is an improvement on the original. The Government always declare that certain things are to be done, and then at the end of almost every Clause they decide, somehow or another, to exempt almost everybody they can. That same principle underlies this Clause. Sub-section (1a) reads:
in any factory where any employed persons are accustomed to take their meals at the factory, for the use of those persons; 
What is the use of saying in a Bill such as this, which I presume will last for the next quarter of a century, that these facilities are to be supplied only in any factory where employed persons are accustomed to take their meals at the factory? People want to wash their hands and faces apart altogether from the idea of taking their meals at the factory. The right hon. Gentleman said that standards are rising. Of course they are. But if standards are to rise during the next quarter of a century as they have during the last, in this connection the Bill will be out-of-date very soon. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that all the up-to-date and intelligent employers are already providing washing facilities in their factories very much superior to those that would be provided under this Clause.
We are not opposing this Clause, because it is better than what we have had before, but I would like to make a general comment on it. Where an employer requires cleanliness and washing facilities for the purpose of his business, he provides for them. I know of one factory not very far from the House where about 6,000 people are employed in the preparation of food. There they have washing facilities, manicurists, chiropodists, permanent wavers, and so on. If it is right that these facilities should be established for the purposes of the business of the employer, then they ought also to be established for the welfare and cleanliness of the workpeople. This Clause shows the weakness and timidity of the right hon. Gentleman, who belongs to the same party as his predecessor. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Their outlook is exactly the same. They are timid, afraid to move, afraid of the employers. Of course, almost all the hon. Gentlemen behind the Government are interested in factories from the employers' side. The right hon. Gentleman takes note of that, of course. When I find words like these at the end of the Clause I am justified in the observation I have made:
(a) prescribe, as respects any of the classes of case specified in the foregoing Sub-section, a standard of adequate and suitable washing facilities";
That is all to the good. But what follows? The right hon. Gentleman can
(b) exempt any factory or class or description of factory from the requirement to provide washing facilities where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that factory or class or description of factory, such facilities cannot reasonably be required:
A point has been raised about pithead baths. We have the strange anomaly that the miner can go home cleaner to his meal in his cottage than can the factory worker under this Bill. If the miners do not mind my saying so, that is another example of the power of political representation we have through the trade unions. The miner has achieved by law more than the factory worker, because the factory worker is not as adequately represented as the miner in this House. The new Clause is a great improvement on anything we have had before, yet I would repeat that the right hon. Gentleman is not one bit more progressive than was his predecessor when the Bill was in Standing Committee, for

this Clause provides similar exceptions and exemptions. I wish the Government were not as timid and that they would do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, that as standards are being raised throughout the country in the factories, the Clause ought to provide for washing facilities, not only for the purpose of any business of the employer, but in order to induce the workpeople to use the washing facilities when provided.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: If I might refer for a moment to the two or three opening sentences of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I would say that those of us who remember the long and arduous sittings in Committee on the India Bill, as well as the tremendous task which had to be carried through outside the House in connection with that Bill, will recall the tact and ability and—I use the word advisedly—the fortitude with which my right hon. Friend conducted that Bill, in Parliamentary circumstances which were not exactly normal If we bear that in mind we shall be completely confident that he will be equal to the task of piloting this Bill through the House in its remaining stages. This Bill does not, of course, compare in size or scope or magnitude with the India Bill, but, nevertheless it is a Bill of the greatest possible importance to some millions of people. We who were on the opposition in Committee were disappointed in many things, but within the limits within which it was possible for the Government to negotiate and discuss and concede, the Bill has been carried on up to now on the basis of co-operation, and I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will so conduct matters that we shall be able to continue in that spirit to the end.
With regard to this new Clause my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) used the master phrase that the Clause is a great deal better than anything we have had up to now. It is true that he made some criticisms of it, and with them I wish to associate myself. I do not think that the Clause, which I welcome, really marks any advance in the standard already obtaining in a large number of the better factories, and the merits of it will be found in the fact that it will bring up the backward factories to a more satisfactory


level. It is for that reason that we certainly welcome the new Clause.

4.7 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I have watched the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary career for some years, but I do not think that in my time it has been equalled. I have seen him "running" India, "running" Foreign affairs, "running" the Admiralty, and now I see him "running" the Home Office. I am only wondering what the next year or two will bring. When I saw that he was appointed to the Home Office, I said that at least we should get courtesy, but I was not sure about his knowledge of these matters. He will be judged, as everyone is judged, by his capacity. The Clause does mean an improvement so far as it deals with the subject in a much more comprehensive way. As I read it, it provides two or three things. It proposes that in future factories, or where people have to take their food, or where the Ark is offensive, washing facilities shall be provided. In those three categories it is compulsory for workers to be provided with these facilities. What is not covered by these three categories is the factory which is not a new factory, a factory where the work is not offensive work and the factory where people do not take their food. I may be wrong in my reading of the new Clause, and if so, the Home Secretary will correct me.
I want to see the provision of washing facilities made compulsory in every case. I suppose that everyone here is directly or indirectly connected with factory life in some way or other, either as employer or worker. I remember that in my shipyard days I worked at a clean trade and there was nothing offensive about it. I hope I am no snob, but I thought it was necessary, when one went to the lavatory, that one should be able to wash one's hands. Whether you are working at a clean trade or not, surely to goodness in the year 1937 it is not too much to ask that even after the cleanest of jobs you ought to be able to wash your hands. Although people may not actually take food in a factory, it is a not uncommon practice for workmen, particularly since the 47 hours has come into operation and the breaks are now longer, to eat an apple or an orange at his work. That is quite a proper thing to do.
I say to the Minister that the exemptions provided by this new Clause are bad. I can understand there being one or two exemptions. A building being erected is a factory, and one can understand the difficulty of erecting lavatories wholesale in such a case, but I do not understand the provision about work being offensive and dirty. If a workman wants to eat an apple he should be allowed facilities for doing so with clean hands. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that part of the Clause. I would not ask for this change in the case of a temporary factory like the building of the new exhibition at Glasgow, but in the normal course and in an ordinary factory everyone should be provided with cleaning facilities. My experience is the same as that of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), that in good factories the facilities are provided, but in some smaller places, and often places that need them most, they are not provided.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I wish to see reform in factory conditions as much as any hon. Members opposite, but I am frankly a little surprised at the attitude which they adopt towards this most helpful Clause. It seems to me that the emphasis which they have put on certain paragraphs of the Clause is not justified when one reads the proposal as a whole. One would think from the speeches of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that Sub-sections (1,c) and (1,d) did not exist at all. As I read the Clause they are the most important paragraphs in it. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are comparatively unimportant as against paragraphs (c) and (d). The former merely set out the bare minimum. The latter paragraphs expand it as far as in each case is required. This Bill is primarily legislating for the future. In so far as is possible, it is bringing the conditions which have arisen in the past up to the standard which we wish to see maintained in the future. However, when introducing a reform it is not always practicable to require the complete change of everything that has gone before. In regard to the past one must make a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Member must take it for granted that any factory


constructed, reconstructed or converted for use as a factory after the commencement of this Act, can be exempted and excepted under this new Clause.

Mr. Sandys: As I read it, under Subsection (1,c) the provision of adequate facilities for washing will be a matter of course in all new factories unless the Home Secretary should feel obliged to exercise his powers under Sub-section (2,b). We all know the spirit in which this Measure has been introduced. It is only because of a desire for improved labour conditions that the Government and the House have devoted so much time to this Bill. I cannot see, in those circumstances, how any hon. Member can be justified in suggesting that the Government will try to undo the whole effect of this Measure by exercising, with undue freedom, the provision in Subsection (2,b) for the exemption of exceptional cases. When one considers the Clause as a whole, it is clear that with the exception of cases coming under Subsection (2,b)—under which the Home Secretary can exempt certain factories under special conditions —washing facilities will be provided in every factory in the country, whether old or new, where a desire for them exists and where the inspector is satisfied that the facilities, if provided, will be used. In my opinion the Clause goes a long way and the criticism which has been levelled against it is not well-founded. It is based on a somewhat academic attitude towards the drafting of the Clause. We would all naturally have preferred a clear-cut Clause stipulating that washing facilities must be provided everywhere without any exemptions. But we have to consider this as a practical problem. The provision of adequate facilities is not always a simple matter in all cases. It does not therefore seem to me unreasonable that factories, in which there is no desire for such facilities or in which the facilities would not be used, should be exempted, and I trust that the House, as a whole, will accept the Clause, in the spirit in which I am sure the Government have introduced it.

4.18 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: It was rather amusing to hear the previous speaker suggest that the attitude of hon. Members on this side towards factories was academic.

Presumably, his attitude towards them is practical.

Mr. Sandys: I did not say that. I said that the criticism of the alleged shortcomings of this Clause was somewhat academic.

Miss Wilkinson: That seems to be the same idea expressed in rather a longer phrase, but even if the hon. Member's connection with factories has been extremely unacademic, I cannot imagine that, except possibly on the football field, he has ever for very long been more than a few steps away from adequate washing facilities. Anyone who works in this House as a Member of Parliament, realises how appallingly grubby it is possible for one's hands to get after an hour or two, especially if one is handling papers, and how uncomfortable it can be. We must, therefore, realise what it means to people who have to live and work for eight or nine hours in a factory which is inevitably dusty, however clean it may appear to the casual visitor. While we welcome this Clause, we think it a pity that the Government have not regarded the matter in a more generous way, bearing in mind the fact that we are probably legislating here for the next 20 or 30 years.
There is no section of workers among whom the standard in this respect has been so raised, since the last Factory Act of over 30 years ago, than among the women workers. The day of the crushed woman factory worker with a few shillings a week, too poor and too tired to care what she looked like has gone. Thanks to trade unionism, and trade boards and their ameliorative work that kind of woman worker has been replaced by a self-respecting woman worker who, when she leaves the factory to go to her home, wants to look nice and clean and a creditable member of the community in which she lives. We are not legislating here for the Rowntrees and the Cadburys, and people of that kind. We are legislating for the people who need legislation in order to bring them up to reasonable standards. What, then, can be argued against insisting right from the beginning that the standards which we are laying down shall be reasonable standards? The previous speaker said that this was only a bare minimum, but the barest minimum set down in an Act of


Parliament is the maximum legally be enforced.

Mr. Sandys: I said that Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), represented a bare minimum, but were extended by paragraphs (c) and (d).

Miss Wilkinson: The whole point is that the first part of Sub-section (1) is the operative part. It lays down a bare minimum and what we are anxious to do is to get that bare minimum defined, so that the standard set in the Bill shall be something like a reasonable standard. I, like most trade union organisers, have seen women and girls in a factory crowding round a bucket of cold water which may have been clean when first put out but is bound to become very doubtful after being used once or twice. One has seen women and girls washing their hands under those conditions and having to depend on a little powder for tidying up their faces. That is not fair or right, and it is not to the advantage of the employer, if the employer would only look at the matter in a modern way. I feel certain that proper basins and hot water, and all the things which we ourselves regard as the barest minimum of washing facilities, should be provided, and that it should be laid down in this Measure.
The Minister is allowing a very long time for structural alterations. Nobody, can claim that he is not allowing a reasonable time. If this Act passes in the summer of 1937 those responsible are being allowed until the summer of 1939 to provide these things. I think that is going a long way and if we are doing that, at least we ought to be willing to insist that these structural alterations should not consist merely of putting in a tap of cold water. But with regard to the first part of the Clause, that is all that can really be insisted upon. Then we come to Sub-section (1,d) which says that the superintendent inspector must be satisfied that a substantial number of the persons employed desire the facilities and would be likely to avail of them. Is the superintendent inspector to make a kind of psycho-analysis of the people in a factory to know, first, whether they desire the facilities and, secondly, whether if they got them they would be likely to make use of them? It seems to me that that second part of Sub-section (1) limits

the first part. If it does not, then, surely, that can it is unnecessary.
How does the Minister propose that the superintendent inspector shall find out what the workers desire in this matter? Those of us who have had experience of the Home Office in regard to the working of the two-shift system, are very doubtful about this question of desire. Who is to decide what the workers desire? Will representations from trade union officials be sufficient to establish their desire, or is the superintendent inspector to ask the workers themselves, when the employer is there or when a foreman or welfare worker is there? How will that work in the case of a very young women workers? All of us who are concerned about young people want to see them begin life with nice habits. If they have been trained in those habits in the elementary schools, at considerable cost to the State, is it not a pity that they should lose those habits in the first months of their working lives? But anyone who has had to deal with young girls like that knows that they will not express a desire for anything while the employer is there.
I suggest that without having any question of what is desired or how many workers are going to make use of the facilities, or any of these other conditions, the Minister should apply the principle, of which he himself gave an illustration, that if the facilities are there, use will be made of them. The whole tendency of modern life is in that direction, and I fear that the grudging spirit in which this Clause has been framed may, from the beginning, vitiate what the Minister himself has told us he desires to do. We are asking for a decent standard of civilised life for all workers, so that they should be able to wash adequately and to look decent when they leave the factories. Would it not be better to say so and to make it clear that that is what we desire, instead of putting in so many "ifs and ans" that the Clause may turn out to be one of those Clauses, known to the Home Office, which are monuments of good intentions but very little else.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I only wish I had read this Clause yesterday. Had I done so I should have proposed an Amendment which would have left out most of it, on the ground that it is unnecessary. Why we want paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d)


of Sub-section (1) I do not know. Subsection (1) should be:
Suitable facilities for washing conveniently situated shall be provided and maintained in all factories.
Then Sub-section (2) could stand. I cannot visualise any factory where minimum washing facilities cannot be provided. Taking the very small case, you can buy a washing basin at Wool-worths for 6d., you can buy a pail for 6d. and a tablet of soap for id. Does the Home Secretary suggest, or do his advisers suggest that minimum facilities cannot be provided? Thirty years ago I worked in a factory. Anyone looking at it would have said that it was well equipped and well designed. Many hon. Members pass it frequently in the train and I am sure, looking at it to-day, they would say the same thing and I understand that now these facilities are provided in it. But when I was there my fellow-apprentices and I used to pay 6d. a week to a timekeeper to provide us with a bucket of hot water at the end of the morning shift and at the end of the afternoon shift, in the latrine, where we washed our hands before we left the factory. It was a horrible condition of affairs. Why it should be perpetuated I do not understand, and I do not understand why the Home Secretary should be so timid about the matter.
It is not that we are asking manufacturers to provide something unreasonable, because nearly every decent manufacturer provides these facilities already. One good thing that we got out of the Ministry of Munitions was a real stimulus in this direction, thanks to the admirable work done by the welfare department of that Ministry. An incredible improvement took place during wartime in the provision of these bare minima of civilisation. I am not saying that when we come to the Amendment I shall support the proposal that in all cases hot water with waste pipes and plugs should be provided, because there are cases where in practice that would be exceedingly difficult. If we left out all these qualifications and merely laid down a general declaration that facilities for washing should be provided, and then let Sub-section (2) stand, whereby the Secretary of State could prescribe what were adequate and sufficient under the varying conditions which exist, and allow him power of exemption in the most exceptional cases—I cannot visualise them

myself—where it is impossible to provide any facilities, it would be better.
Let us say to everybody, "You must provide for your employés some opportunities for decent cleanliness." Instead of that, we come back to the old principle of contracting in or contracting out. Here, apparently, you have to contract into decency instead of being allowed to contract out in certain exceptional circumstances. Nothing is worse than to see masses of men in buses, trains, and trams going home filthy. Why should other people be exposed to having dirty people sitting alongside of them because they have not either the desire or the facilities for cleaning themselves properly? I am amazed that the wives of this country have not gone on strike years ago, because their husbands have come home not properly clean. We do not find that sort of thing in a great many other countries, where the standard of cleanliness in this connection is much higher than it is here, and I hope the Home Secretary will take his courage in both hands and decide that the provision of washing facilities shall become more definite than is secured by this Clause.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I suggest that the Home Secretary should reconsider this Clause and that he should take it back and remodel it. It only applies compulsion and obligation in this matter definitely to factories constructed or reconstructed after the commencement of the Act, and it leaves compulsion entirely out of the question in the case of existing factories. It provides that facilities shall be afforded, so far as existing factories are concerned, in cases
in which the superintending inspector for the division by order requires such facilities to he provided, being satisfied that a substantial number of the persons employed in the factory or department desire, and would be likely to avail themselves of, the facilities.
All existing factories can be exempt unless the inspector considers that the employés desire these facilities. Why have the Clause in at all? The people who will be affected by this Measure are not so much those who will work in new factories as the millions who are working in existing factories. That is the real point, and it is those people for whom we ought to legislate rather than for a future generation of factory workers. I do not see any reason why there should not be a


clear declaration that adequate facilities should be provided in all factories, and the absence of such a declaration is, I think, the weakness of this Clause. I wish to associate myself with those hon. Members who have spoken already as to the timidity with which the Home Secretary and the Department have approached this question. Surely the time has arrived when public opinion demands that there shall be more opportunities for cleanliness in our factories, and the Home Secretary should have taken his courage in both hands, made the Clause definite, and applied it to all existing factories.

4.35 P.m.

Mr. Higgs: I, also, think this Clause should be made compulsory, without qualification. All decent factories have washing facilities. There is a very small minority indeed that have not, and if there is any difficulty about providing such facilities, why not extend the time in which that should be done until 1940? Let us have a Clause that is not ambiguous. It says in paragraph (c):
In any factory constructed, reconstructed or converted for use as a factory after the commencement of this Act.
One could extend a factory, in which case I do not think it would come under this Clause at all, and the owner could get away without providing adequate washing facilities. If extensions could be made, surely there would be room for providing washing facilities. It is a difficulty, I admit, where one supplies a white rag for cleaning purposes and unscrupulous people use it for other purposes, but nowadays there are such things as paper towels, which are very inexpensive, and that is an easy way of getting out of this difficulty. In these days of liquid soaps and so on there should be no difficulty in making this Clause compulsory. It might be hard on sonic of the smaller factories, but, if so, the period of time could be extended. I think an ambiguous Clause of this description in a Measure which may have to last for another 30 years is a very undesirable thing.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I would like to add my plea to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to redraft this Clause. It looks to me as if paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of this Clause will put some

employers into immense difficulties, because it will make two classes of workmen in one shop. One class will be able to wash before meals, but there will be no authorisation for the other class in that shop to use those facilities. It means to say that the Bill will allow one section of the men in a shop to be clean and another section in the same shop to go home without being clean. I think that everyone can see that the Clause is intensely weak. Those workmen who go home to their meals will wash themselves before going home—as a matter of fact they do it now—by fetching a bucket of water and getting probably half a pound of soft soap from the stores and using for a towel possibly a piece of rag for a week. That is what they do to-day, and the Home Secretary is perpetuating by this Clause that filthy method of dealing with the matter. I am not blaming the men. They are endeavouring to be clean, and they would welcome facilities for washing, I can assure the Home Secretary.
As I have said, the Clause simply makes two classes in one shop. Those who go home to their meals will not be provided with facilities, except what they provide for themselves, and those who stay to their meals will be able to go to the very aristocratic washbowls and wash themselves and have clean towels provided for the purpose. Does the Home Secretary think that the untouchables in that shop will not use those clean towels? Of course they will, and I suggest that, in order to clear this anomaly away, the right hon. Gentleman should produce a general Clause covering the whole of the workers in a shop. If he does that, he will make a good job of it. Apart from that criticism, I think the Clause is a great advance on anything of its kind before.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: I, like many other speakers, wish this Clause had been more widely drafted. Unless one has actually had experience of working in a factory, one cannot fully realise the unpleasantness of having to travel perhaps several miles back home without having adequate facilities provided for washing. Having myself worked in a colliery, where no such facilities were available, I heartily support any legislation which will make for their provision. I attach considerable importance to paragraph (c),


which I think is a substantial improvement, securing as it does that in any new factory washing facilities shall be provided. I hope the doubt thrown on the wording of this paragraph, namely, that it will be possible to get out of it is not well founded and that the Home Secretary will be able to reassure the House on that point, because I consider that it will be very wrong if a new factory could be erected without adequate washing facilities being put in.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), in his very interesting speech, referred to the great progress that has been made in the mining industry in providing better facilities for washing, but it is still the case that it is possible to-day for a new colliery to be started without a pit-head bath being erected. I hope for that reason that this Clause is drawn watertight, so that it will be impossible for new factories to be erected without providing adequate washing facilities, unless permission not to do so is obtained from the Home Office, which I cannot conceive would be the case. I wish to support the Clause.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Broad: I was very encouraged when the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman undertook in Committee to introduce a Clause on this subject, but I feel very disappointed at the way in which it has been introduced by his successor. It does not provide that at any time in the future washing facilities must be provided. It says that in two years' time some factories that now exist may have to provide such facilities for some of their workers. The Clause seems to have been drafted by people who have no realisation of the conditions under which workers go from their homes to work in the factories and have their meals. Sub-section (1,a) says:
In any factory where any employed persons are accustomed to take their meals at the factory, for the use of those persons.
It seems to assume that all workers who do not take their meals at the factory go home to their meals, but that is not the fact by a long, long way. It is a very small proportion of the workers who go home to their meals, and that proportion will become smaller still as the years go on, now that you are having satellite dormitories for the workers, as at Dagenham and elsewhere. A large proportion of the workers do not stop in

the factories for meals, because there are no facilities there, and there is so much dirt and noise as well that they like to get a breath of fresh air outside. They therefore go out to dining rooms, coffee houses, if you like, cafés, tea-shops, and so on, where they find themselves among their fellow-workers.
I remember when I was a mechanic that I felt myself degraded by the aspect of everybody else whose work kept them clean. The office boy, who did not get dirty at his work, was given washing accommodation, but the mechanic in the factory, the most ingenious and skilful man, had no such facility. I remember that I had to go out in the City of London with carbon dust on my face and hands from the place where I was working, into a dining room where the waiters or waitresses would look at me as much as to say, "What have you come in here for?" I used at one time to hold a season ticket on the old Underground Railway, which entitled me to travel second class, and I remember that I was often humiliated by people asking the guard or a porter to examine my ticket, because I was one of the great unwashed, and what right had I to travel second class? That is the sort of thing which is most offensive and it is continuing. Workers in the big areas leave in the early morning for their work and if they go out for their meals they will not be able to wash until they get home at night. Factories which provide meals and have canteens, invariably have washing accommodation. It is the other places we have in mind where men have to go out to a meal and have to sneak round the corner and go to the cheapest kind of dining place for fear of being stared at because they are unable to wash. Any lad who wants to keep his self-respect had better leave factory work alone and get into another kind of job, because he is regarded as an inferior person. The office boy is "Mr. Jones," but his grandfather, who may be the best mechanic in the factory, is "J. Jones,"
That is the spirit which seems to have animated the Factory Department when they drafted this new Clause. It would not ruin industry to provide washing accommodation. It would cost a few pence per week per worker at the most, and yet this Clause says that some of


them in two years' time, if the workers have meals in the factory, may provide come kind of washing facility. At no time in the future are the existing factories to be brought into line. Why not say right away that all factories within a certain time must provide these common essentials to decency, cleanliness and health, and only grant exemptions in certain cases? Many kinds of work are now brought within the scope of factories although they are not factories in the accepted sense, such as building operations, but on building jobs they have to have water, and it is easy to provide portable washing facilities. There are very few factories that will require exemption. If there is a will there is a way to make it compulsory on all employers who are making profit out of people's work, to give them the first essentials to cleanliness. I hope that the Minister will take this new Clause back, and, in place of this halting and hesitating way of going about the thing, will take a bold step forward and say that for the future the working-classes who produce the wealth of the country will not be branded by their appearance as the great unwashed.

4.49 P.m.

Miss Horsbrugh: The expressions of opinion to which we have listened must have conveyed to my right hon. Friend the great feeling there is that we should provide facilities for washing in all factories unless there are particular occasions such as those to which the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Broad) referred, where work is included as factory work but does not normally come under that heading. The Home Secretary referred to the argument that might be used about men and women leaving factories and having to go away dirty. Other arguments have been put to us. Surely, for the sake of health in these days when we are talking of keeping fit and raising the standard of the health of the people, a Government Department is not going to say that it is not necessary to be clean to be healthy. The attitude of the Home Office is behind that of the House and seems to regard washing as a fad of the people for the sake of personal appearance instead of as one of the essentials to health. Those who live far from their work cannot wash

from early morning till late at night if they are not given these facilities. Many improvements have been made in this Bill in factory life, but surely it is a strange thing that on the Report stage we have to begin on the first day asking for what we might have imagined would be the minimum for people working in factories, namely, that they should be able to wash.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Mander: When this Bill was in Committee it was dealt with in a spirit of co-operation and goodwill between the Members of the Government and the Committee, and I hope that the same spirit will animate the proceedings on Report. On a number of occasions in Committee the Government deferred to the overwhelming opinion of those who spoke, and one of the results of that was to get provisions for washing facilities. They are greatly in excess of what they were in the original Bill, but they are not good enough, and I venture to hope that the Government once again will defer to the clearly expressed opinion that we have had from all sides and will consider whether they cannot go further. It is interesting to find, both in the House and in the Committee, that the opinion of Members of Parliament as a whole is definitely in advance of that of the Home Office, and I hope that the Government will recognise that. They will find that they are supported by the overwhelming opinion of the elected representatives of the people who will be affected by these provisions.
I want to touch on a point which shows how inadequate the present arrangements are as covered by Sub-section (1,a). I have a case in mind where some of the workers at a factory take their meals in the mess room provided just inside the gates. Some of the others, because they like the cooking provided by a restaurant just outside the gates, go there. Under this Clause, those who remain inside the gates will be able to wash their hands, but those who go out will not be able to do so. That is a ludicrous situation. I hope that the Government on consideration will feel that they can go the whole length of the demand that has been put forward from all sides, and I believe that they will be supported by the country.

4.53 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I venture to reinforce the appeal that has been made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from all quarters of the House. I had not read this new Clause until I came into the House, but after listening to the Debate on it I am bound to say that the speeches made from all quarters seem unanswerable. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will make provision that adequate washing accommodation shall be compulsory in all factories, with the exception of the discretion which is rightly left to the Home Secretary in Sub-section (2,b). If he will broaden the new Clause he will meet the opinion of all quarters of the House. If, however, he feels unable to meet the opinion in that broader fashion, I hope that he will pay attention to the question of extensions. In Sub-section (1,c) it is laid down that washing accommodation shall be provided only where factories are newly constructed, reconstructed or converted, but not where they have been extended. Extensions are being made to factories all the time and there cannot be any reason why an extension of washing facilities should not be immediately provided.
The other point to which I would especially call my right hon. Friend's attention is the language of paragraph (d), which seems to me to be needlessly offensive to the working-class. I cannot conceive for what reason it is supposed that the workpeople in a factory should express a desire for washing accommodation unless they are likely to use it. Are they going to ask for it in order to make themselves disagreeable to their employers, or for some obscure political purpose, or because they are Communists? It seems ridiculous that that sort of thing should appear in the draft of this Clause. I hope that if the proposed Clause is not broadened in the way in which I hope it will be, these difficulties, at any rate, will be removed.

4.55 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think that full justice has been done to this proposed new Clause. It is really a very comprehensive Clause, and I am not sure whether all hon. Members who have spoken have understood how comprehensive it is. It covers all cases where employés take their meals, all cases where there is an amount

of dirt and dust, and all new factories. What a good many hon. Members have failed to notice is that it gives very wide powers under paragraph (d) to cover factories outside those three categories. My advisers tell me that it is so very comprehensive that it covers almost all the cases that have been mentioned this afternoon. For instance, one hon. Member pointed to the possible anomaly of a distinction being drawn between one class of employé and another in a factory. That would be amply covered by the powers under paragraph (d), and a situation of that kind could not arise here. The Clause as it is drafted is very comprehensive, and it is our definite intention to ensure washing facilities in practically every case. In dealing with 250,000 undertakings of every sort and character there must be a certain elasticity and a power of exemption such as is set out in Sub-section (2).
The House will see from what I have said that it is the desire of the Government to make this new Clause as effective and as comprehensive as possible. I agree with everything that has been said on all sides of the House as to the need of gradually raising the standards in factories and workshops. If, however, the House does not like the rather detailed drafting of this Clause, and it is understood that there is no difference of opinion between us as to the general scope that we require, namely, that we wish to make it as comprehensive as possible and that we must have elasticity and power of exemption, I am prepared, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the new Clause. I am anxious to proceed as far as we can by general agreement. I am ready to withdraw the Clause on the understanding that it is redrafted on the lines I have suggested, namely, a general provision for washing facilities everywhere, with the power of exemption in special cases, and to bring the Clause into closer harmony with the next new Clause which I shall move about accommodation for clothing. In that Clause we proceed on the lines of a general provision with a certain elasticity to be allowed in special cases. I am prepared to withdraw this proposed Clause, have it drafted on those lines, and have it moved in another place.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Messer: May I ask whether that means that the Amendment which is down to this Clause will not be moved, because


the reference to providing separate wash basins and hot water is very important? The illustration given by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) shows a practice which is very widespread in big industry. If Members went to the East End of London any evening—to Hoxton, Shoreditch or Bethnal Green—and took note of the hands of the people they met walking along the streets, they would find that in a large number of cases their hands were dirty with a type of dirt that you cannot wash off with cold water. The people to whom I refer are french polishers. Men and women who are working with grease can usually get rid of the grease, but in the case of french polishers their skin comes in contact with the material they are using, and as they cannot use rubber gloves or any preventive, arid the material they use is a very dirty material indeed, it is impossible for them when washing with soap and water to get their hands clean. Shellac is very tenacious.
What happens in most of the furnishing factories is that a number of the workers get a bucket of water, heat it, put soda in it and wash their hands. As the Home Secretary will know, there is in that industry the disease of dermatitis, which comes from the use of turpentine and other things. A man who has dermatitis may be washing in the same bowl of water as the other men, and that would involve the possibility of spreading the disease. Therefore, that Amendment is very important in order to secure that a workman shall wash his hands in a bowl which can be drained before the next person uses it. I hope the Home Secretary will consider that point. What are referred to as "adequate and suitable" in the Clause may be adequate and suitable for certain things. Though it might be adequate and suitable to require hot water to be provided n the winter, that would not be sufficient in the case of the type of workers to which I am referring. At the moment there is no compulsion on employers to provide washing facilities, and in some cases to get rid of the polish the workers wash their hands in methylated spirits, which is not a good thing.

5.5 P.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I will certainly remember that point. I think it had been covered already in Sub-section (2,a). Now that

I have undertaken to redraft this Clause on more general lines, we must stick to more general lines, and while I will take into account the case he has described and assure him that we will carry out the Clause in the spirit of Sub-section (2,a) tinder which standards have to be prescribed, we must get away from this detailed drafting now.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I should like to know whether the Home Secretary has considered the location of the washing facilities. I suggest that steps should be taken to secure that the washing facilities are provided at each entrance or outlet to a factory, so that when the worker is coming in or going out he passes through the place where the washing facilities are. That is very important. The point has arisen in connection with the provision of pithead baths.

5.7 P.m.

Mr. Leonard: I understand that the new Clause is to be more general in its terms, and I hope that the Home Secretary will still retain the power under order to deal with what is adequate and suitable in order to meet the case of new processes if proper facilities for cleanliness are to be secured.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I think I shall be speaking the mind of Members of all parties when I say that the right hon. Gentleman has done the best thing in agreeing to take back this Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I take it that the hon. Member has the permission of the House to speak again.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I ought to have asked for that permission. All I wanted to say was that when the right hon. Gentleman brings up the Clause again it will mean that we shall have thrown upon the administration nearly all the things we have been asking him to do, and I think it is right to say that we have very great faith in the Factory Department of the Home Office to see that the desires we have expressed to-day will be carried out by the Orders.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Accommodation for clothing.)

(1) There shall be provided and maintained for the use of employed persons suitable accommodation for clothing not worn during working hours; and such arrangements as are reasonably practicable shall be made for drying such clothing.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) prescribe, either generally or as respects any class or description of factory, a standard of suitable accommodation for clothing;
(b) exempt any factory or class or description of factory from any requirement of the foregoing Sub-section where he is satisfied that, having regard to the special conditions under which work is carried on in that factory or class or description of factory, the requirement would be unreasonable.—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.10 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Very much the same arguments apply to this Clause as applied to the last Clause, except that the House will see that it is drafted in a more general way, and in that respect is, I imagine, more in harmony with the views of most hon. Members. The history of the Clause is very much the history of the last Clause, namely, that we started with restricting the need of this accommodation to factories and workshops where either dangerous or exceptionally dirty processes were being carried on. The object of this Clause is to extend the provisions to factories and workshops generally. It arises from the discussions in Standing Committee, where a demand came from all sides for further extensions on these lines. Here, again, it is our desire to make the operation of the Clause as comprehensive as possible. Considering the great variety of the factories with which we are dealing, hon. Members will agree, I think, that there must be some power of exemption, some power of elasticity in administration. I think the need for that was accepted in the Standing Committee. If there is not elasticity there will be a great demand for exemptions. The administration of the Clause would then be much more difficult. We feel that as it is drafted it follows the line I took on the first new Clause, namely, to make it of a general character, but with a measure of elasticity in administration.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This new Clause is a great improvement on the status quo and on the Clause which was first introduced. I would, however, make one criticism for the purposes of illustration. This Clause provides accommodation for drying clothing. I would ask for any hon. M ember to give us an illustration of any group of workpeople employed in any factory who will not in winter require facilities for their clothing to be dried. During some part of the year the workmen will almost certainly get their clothing wet. Every factory worker will be affected in that way, and I am curious to know why there should be any exemption at all. I can understand that there may have to be some exemptions in connection with other factory regulations, but an exemption in respect of the drying of clothing I cannot understand at all. I can think of no case where facilities for drying overcoats will not be required at some time during the year.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 6, at the end, to insert "and for drying such clothing."
It is very difficult to understand why the Secretary of State should be empowered to prescribe a standard of suitable accommodation for clothing and not also have the power to do so in respect of the drying of such clothing. I think it is hardly necessary for me to argue in support of the Amendment, because the merits of it are apparent on the face of it. I hope the Home Secretary will see that it would be in accordance with the aim of the Clause that he should have powers to prescribe for the drying of clothing.

Mr. White: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: The matter appears to be one of drafting and there is not very much difference, one way or the other. If the hon. Members who have moved and seconded the Amendment prefer their Amendment, I do not mind, and I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Protection of eyes in certain processes.)

In the case of any such process as may be specified by regulations of the Secretary of State, being a process which involves a special risk of injury to the eyes from particles or fragments thrown off in the course of the process, suitable goggles or effective screens shall he provided to protect the eyes of the persons employed in the process.—[Mr. G. Lloyd.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is intimately connected with two Amendments which my right hon. Friend is proposing to Clause 14 (3). I would deal with the matter in general, because it arises out of the discussion which we had upon that Clause in Committee. Hon. Members who were present there will remember, and I would point it out to the rest of the House, that under the existing law there is power to fence machinery, but no power to fence the work that may he in the machine. It has been impressed upon the Home Office, because of a number of peculiarly distressing accidents, that workpeople may be injured, not only by the machine itself, but by the work which is moving in the machine, say, in a lathe. Distressing accidents have occurred in the use of the stock bar and hollow-spindle lathes. I remember hearing in Committee of the case of a girl who stopped to pick up something off the floor and her hair came entangled with the rapidly moving stock bar, with the result that she was badly hurt.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman seems to be speaking somewhat off the lines of the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Lloyd: I apologise if I appear to do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am not doing so. The Bill is very complicated in its details. We brought forward in Committee proposals for dealing with accidents, and the Committee criticised them. We are now bringing forward an amending scheme, of which this new Clause is an integral part. Fresh examinations have taken place in the Home Office of accidents not as the result of the machine, but of the material in the machine, and we have found—a very useful result of our discussions in the

Committee—that an extraordinary number of accidents is due to particles in motion flying out of a machine. Therefore, we decided to bring forward a more elaborate amending scheme to deal with those accidents. This is a Clause which completes our new scheme for dealing with the danger of material in motion. It gives the Home Secretary power to prevent accidents arising from that cause.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Short: We welcome the proposed new Clause. I do not intend to follow the Parliamentary Secretary into a discussion of the proposed Amendment to Clause 14. Under this new Clause the Home Secretary proposes to take power to make regulations to ensure the provision of suitable goggles or effective screens. That is a very wise provision, as I know from my own practical experience. I hope that he will also take the opportunity not merely to provide those necessary defences, but to ensure that employers see that their workmen use them.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I notice that the wording suggested is "suitable goggles." May I say a word about the use of goggles? In industries where men sweat, their goggles become corroded. In many cases such goggles fit badly. I am making these statements in the hope that inspectors will see that men who use these appliances do not suffer. Some of us who wear glasses know that when they fit badly across the bridge of the nose they are not very comfortable. In places where there may be particles or steam in the air, very serious inflammation may take place on the bridge of the nose. Where men are constantly using goggles, it is not enough merely to provide suitable goggles of a general type, but to suit the individual case. In many cases men suffer severely in the way I have mentioned, and I suggest that something more is needed to be added to those words. I hope that the inspectors will see that men do not suffer. I have been specially asked to stress these points.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Broad: It is not clear whether the Minister or the inspectors are to have power to compel the use either of a screen or of goggles, or whether that decision will be left to the employer. I suggest


that the screen method is infinitely more satisfactory, and should be used where-ever possible, and that goggles should be allowed only where a screen cannot be used. For many reasons, largely in connection with dry grinding—the old wet grindstone has gone and now there are high-speed grinding arrangements—it is not only a question of protecting the eyes from pieces of grit or material, very often red hot, but of breathing as well. Those who do not wear glasses know, if they drive a car without a screen but with a pair of glasses on, that a spot of rain upon one of the glasses will obscure their vision at once, whereas dust or dirt can gather on the screen, which is farther from their eyes, and they can still do their job. Working people know how dangerous for their eyes it is to do this dry grinding, but they find it difficult to do the work when wearing goggles, and they almost invariably throw them aside. No threat of punishment would make them keep the goggles on, because they have to get on with their work. The goggles are unsatisfactory, not only because of perspiration, but because of steam and condensation. I hope that these considerations will be borne in mind, and that power will be given to insist upon a screen.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I think I can give satisfactory information on this subject. The fitting of the goggles is very important, but screens will be prescribed wherever possible. We agree that it is the most convenient method. I would, however, mention a case which is referred to in the Home Office Industrial Museum, in which pieces of thermite lodged on a man's spectacles, and his eyes were thereby saved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of night work in bakehouses.)

(1) Subject to such excxeptions as may be allowed by special order made by the Secretary of State, no person shall be employed in the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or in any other process ordinarily carried on in a bakehouse, between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.

(2) The Secretary of State may, on the application of any body representative of the employers or workers in the baking industry

in any district, by special order prohibit any person who carries on within the district the manufacture of bread or flour confectionery, or any such process as aforesaid, whether he does or does not employ any other persons in his business, from being himself engaged in the manufacture or process between the hours of eleven in the evening and five in the morning.

(3) This section shall come into operation en the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine:
Provided that if a joint application is made to the Secretary of State by any body or bodies representative of the employers and of the workers in the industry in any district the Secretary of State may, by special order, direct that this section shall come into operation in that district at such earlier date as may be fixed by the order.—[Mr. Banfield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Banfield: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The proposed new Clause makes a good deal of provision for negotiation in the matter of night baking, subject eventually to an Order by the Secretary of State. I feel in considerable difficulty in moving the Second Reading of this Clause. For some time a Departmental Committee of inquiry has been sitting, and it was hoped that the report would be in the hands of the Minister by the time the Bill reached the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, owing to circumstances over which I presume no one has any control, the report is not ready. Consequently we are left in doubt as to what its substance might be. This matter might very well be settled by this House. For nearly 5o years I have been advocating the abolition of night baking, in season and out of season, at all times, in this country, at Geneva and in European countries. I have lived long enough to see night baking abolished in some form or another in every European country and in the Irish Free State, and to see this nation, Great Britain, the only European country which, up to now, has not abolished night baking. Wherever I go in putting this case, I receive a tremendous amount of sympathy. When I put this matter before the then Home Secretary, who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was intensely moved and sympathetic. He was very much struck with the case that I put up, but I suppose he consulted the officials in the Department and they, being permanent officials, said, "Well, Sir John, the best thing you could do would be to appoint a committee of inquiry. You


are not obliged to act upon any report it may give, and in any case it is satisfactory to everyone, especially in the House of Commons, to know that an inquiry is proceeding."
When I gave evidence before the committee of inquiry, once again I had every sympathy. The chairman and every member of the committee were very interested in the statement I put before them, so much so that I began to feel dread and fear about the result. I am beginning to feel, as George Bernard Shaw once said, that I would never be afraid of the verdict until the judge asked me to take a seat alongside him on the bench. With the knowledge of all the sympathy I have received, I want, if I possibly can, to put this case for the abolition of night baking before the House, so that it may at least receive the sympathy and support of Members of the House of Commons.
This is not a party question; it involves no party politics; it is a human question. I hold in my hand a report of a meeting held in Exeter Hall, a place which some of the older Members of the House will remember, on Wednesday, the 7th March, 1860. The Earl of Shaftesbury was in the chair, and the meeting was held to further the abolition of night baking. His Lordship, in speaking to the meeting, said one or two things that were re-echoed over and over again before the present committee of inquiry. Seventy-seven years ago, operative bakers in London were asking to be allowed to start work at four o'clock in the morning. I am asking now, seventy-seven years after, that they should be allowed to start work at five o'clock in the morning. Lord Shaftesbury said this:
How simple is their request to begin labour at four o'clock in the morning. I say that to many of us this would be an intolerable hardship. They ask to be allowed to work 12 hours a day. I am rejoiced to find that a vast number of masters have already concurred in this arrangement, and find no inconvenience or detriment to their business. I believe many more would be glad to get rid of the system under which they live … but"—
And this is the important point—
they shrink from the trouble and inconvenience to which they might be exposed at the outset. Let them take the evil by the beard and put themselves on the same level as other good men.

Lord Ebury, who also spoke at that meeting, said this—and here again he might have been using the words that I used on the Second Reading of the Bill:
In walking about in rainy weather I used to be surprised to see a part of the pavement which was perfectly dry while all the surrounding portions were wet, and I thought there must be a canopy overhead, or someone must have been standing with a gigantic umbrella; but on passing on I found the same phenomenon occur a short distance further, and at last I noticed that it was always the same, wherever there was a baker's shop. If there had been a sufficient number of them you might have walked dry everywhere, and it appears that the heat rose from the bakers' ovens … These pale gentlemen arrived about eleven; and such a place as these bakers were in no words can describe … I often used to look down through the grating and see those unhappy fellows at work. I could just see these white sort of ghosts moving about in the cellars below.
If Members of this House will take a stroll through the West End of this City to-night after the House is up, they will still see those dry patches on the pavement after the rain, and they will still be able to look down into the cellars and see men working practically naked, except for a singlet. They will be able to see these poor fellows, 77 years after the meeting that was held in Exeter Hall, working under precisely the same conditions.
I have been very much struck with the reports in the Press of the evidence that has been given before the committee of inquiry on night baking. I gave my evidence in my humble way, knowing that I was speaking for the tens of thousands of operative bakers in this country—not only for the members of my organisation, but for the thousands who stand outside my organisation. I spoke for them, for their wives and for their little children, before that committee of inquiry, and I asked that these men should be given to their wives and children, should be allowed to sleep during the night and work during the day. Mine was only one voice. There is only one organisation representing the workmen in this industry, and very many of them are not organised at all, but I spoke for them all.
The Committee has not yet reported, and I was wondering a little about the delay, when I saw in the Press the number of organisations that appeared before this committee of inquiry. The remarkable thing about it was that they were like Falstaff's ragged army—they used to


appear in one guise, go out through the door, change their appearance, and come back again. One of the great firms here in London surpassed itself in this matter. There was "our Mr. Salmon," who appeared in the guise of representing the incorporated wholesale and retail bakers of London. Then there was "our Mr. Gluckstein," who came along as representing the roll makers; and there was "our Mr. Joseph," who came as representing the purveyors of light refreshments. It was the same dog, but with a different collar every time.
There were four great considerations in this matter. There was the consideration whether, if night baking were abolished, it would increase the cost of the loaf. An increase in the cost of bread is a serious matter to many millions of people. When this question was discussed at Geneva in 1925, the employers put forward the remarkable theory that the abolition of night baking would increase the cost of bread. I made a speech at Geneva, and a compliment was paid to me. The representative of the Ministry of Labour who was there got up and said:
I have listened to Mr. Banfield's speech with a very great deal of interest—a typically British speech attacking the British Government.
I pointed out at Geneva that a Royal Commission had been sitting lately which said that the abolition of night baking would raise the price of bread by ½d. per 4 lb. loaf. I am sure that the Commission never realised what it was doing, but, if the abolition of night baking gave to the employers of Great Britain another ½d. per 4 lb. loaf, it would mean a national endowment of the smaller employers to the extent of about £500 a year, and of the larger employers to the extent of almost £10,000 a year, simply because they were baking by day instead of by night. At the present inquiry the story that the abolition of night baking would increase the price of bread has not been seriously put forward by the employers so far as I can tell. From the reports in the Press it would appear that that, at any rate, has "gone West."
One great point that is immediately put forward against the abolition of night baking is that the public demand new bread—a very important point—and that the public demand new rolls. We have had the spectacle of a gentleman who is put forward as being the biggest adver-

tising agent in the world writing to the "Times" and asking what on earth was going to happen to him if he could not get a hot roll for his breakfast. In the old days, when I worked in the bake-house, I could have told him very well indeed, in short language, what I thought of him. I took to the committee of inquiry certain specimens of bread. I thought they ought to have some actual evidence; I knew they were going to have a lot of theory, and a lot of stories about all the terrible things that might possibly happen. I got my friends in Scotland to send me down a loaf—a wrapped loaf—32 hours old. I put it before the committee, and we cut it. When I asked she committee how old they thought it was, they said that it seemed to be very good bread, quite fresh, and might be 12 hours old. They were astonished to rind that it was 32 hours old. I produced bread to them that was 16 hours old. It was unwrapped, and from the appearance and feel of the loaf it was at least as new as the bread that is delivered in your homes every day in the week. I produced to them bread that was five or six hours old, and not fit for people to eat, because it was too new. Whatever argument there may have been to the effect that the public would be supplied with stale bread if night baking were prohibited, that argument, to say the least of it, must have been considerably changed.
There are men engaged in this city at a quarter to six in the evening making bread which is delivered at your homes at any time between ten and one o'clock to-morrow and it will be sold to your good wives as new bread. Under night baking the public are supplied with stale bread and they cannot tell the difference. Is it not obvious that under a system of day baking, with a five o'clock start, the public can be supplied with all the new bread that it wants, and more than is good for it? I am positive that if night baking were prohibited the great majority of people could be supplied with more new bread than they can possibly get under a night baking system.
But I have to meet another point. Can the employers so alter their business that they can institute a day baking system? Last week I was in Aberdeen, and I found that every employer in the industry was using the day system, with a 45-hour week and wages of 72s. as a minimum.


I was at some trouble to interview private employers. There is a co-operative society but the great bulk of the bread trade is done by the usual type of private employer that you will see in every town of that size in the country. They assured me that they would welcome a legal enactment. They did not want to start their men at four o'clock, as they were doing. They would sooner start them at five or six provided everyone in the trade was treated alike. The retail bakery would welcome wholeheartedly the abolition of night baking. It may be said that those representing the retail bakers went to a committee of inquiry and said they did not think they could do it. There is a natural disposition among all classes of people, employers and very often employed alike, instinctively to dislike anything that puts them to a little inconvenience. But there is no technical difficulty. There is no real difficulty.
According to a report in the "Times" a great number of small employers in Argyllshire insisted on being heard before the committee because they said their association had not represented their point of view. They were employers and they were, asking that night baking should be abolished. The real trouble is this: There have grown up, as a consequence of night baking, people who are not satisfied with selling their bread to their neighbours and fellow townsmen but send it 40, 50 or 90 miles away. Outside a lunatic asylum no one could imagine a system which compels men in Manchester to work all night to enable their employers to send bread to Liverpool, and men in Liverpool content to work all night so that their employers can send bread to Manchester and sell it. It is a foolish and wasteful system all along the line. There is neither sense nor reason in it. Men are to be dragged out of their beds at eight or nine o'clock in the evening year in and year out to enable a stupid system like this to continue.
These wholesale bakers say if night baking is abolished we shall lose some portion of our trade. One of the greatest of the wholesale bakers who appeared before the committee of inquiry, according to the Press, was the well-known Glasgow firm of Messrs. Beattie. I was in Glasgow a few months ago and I travelled by night train to Inverness. On that train was bread made by Messrs. Beattie some time

during that afternoon and put on the train at 10.30 at night, and it went to Inverness with me. It was collected by vans and distributed over the whole of the Highlands. If baking were abolished between 11 at night and 5 in the morning what difference would it make to Messrs. Beattie, if the bread is not sent away before II o'clock at night? An ounce of practice is worth a ton of theory. I have here the accounts of a Dublin firm which does a tremendous business, as big as any in the country. They sell their bread all over Ireland—Cork, Waterford and Limerick. They have abolished night baking for the last 10 years. They have made a profit of £28,260, they propose a dividend of 6 per cent. less tax; which is not so bad, I suppose, in these hard times, and on their preference shares 8 per cent. tax free. They carry forward £11,000 and put £37,062 to depreciation. That shows that profits can be made and business expanded in just the same sweet old way. I said to the hon. Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon) the other day, when we had a conversation on this matter, "You pay people for their brains in your business." He said, "Yes, we do." I said, "Well, just tell them to use their brains and they would have no difficulty whatever in solving this problem."
But there is another point that has to be answered. It is a surprising thing that, when you begin to talk about something to ameliorate the conditions of the workers, a certain class of employers say, "We must look into this. The workers might be worse off instead of better. We must look after their interests. It is all very well for Banfield to say these men want to go home and sleep in their beds at night. That might be a very bad thing for them. Among other things this was put up to me, they said, "If you abolish night baking your people will have to work on Sundays. That is a terrible thing." After all, I think I may claim that there is no man who has done more to abolish what was at one time one of the curses of the baking trade, the seven-day week. I have stood at street corners and have used every epithet I could think of in my efforts to stop Sunday baking. When they suggest that this would increase Sunday baking it strikes at my heart because, before everything else, I stand to give every man a chance to enjoy his day of worship and of rest. I found that,


so far as retail bakers are concerned, the matter did not affect them at all. If night baking was abolished they would start at 5 o'clock on Monday morning and produce Monday's bread the same as usual. Messrs. Salmon and Gluckstein have worked their people 52 Sundays in the year ever since I knew the firm at all. The great wholesale houses which produce bread to sell 60 or 90 miles away have worked their people on Sundays and will continue to work them on Sundays. There will be less Sunday baking with night baking abolished than there is now. We cannot wipe it out altogether, but there will not be any more than there is now, and I think there must be considerably less.
I was struck by the remark of a great wholesale baker who, like the late Prime Minister, got into the way of thinking aloud. He was at a master bakers' meeting where they were passing with acclamation resolutions against the prohibition of night baking. He got up and, without stopping to consider precisely the effect of his words, said: "After all, if we have to do it:, we shall find ways and means of doing it and we shall not be much worse off." I quoted this before the committee of inquiry, and I am very sorry to say that this employer has been explaining away what he said ever since, and now he has not convinced anybody that he did not say it. I am the first to recognise that the great wholesale baking houses are by far the best employers that we have. They give better conditions of labour, and they can be depended upon to carry out their obligations. Is it likely that I, with my knowledge of the baking industry, after 25 years' experience at the bench, a craftsman who knows the industry from A to Z, should do anything really to injure people who are my best friends? That is not likely. I said to the hon. Member that I would not work for him at any price, but that if it were necessary I would be prepared to come and show him and the rest of them with what little trouble it can be done.
The opposition to the abolition of night baking comes from the usual sources, out of the selfishness of man and man's inhumanity to man. It is sometimes said that after all other people beside bakers have to work at night, and why should not they ask to be excused. Railway servants and printers have to work at nights. The difference is fundamental.

In regard to the people who have to work a t night because trade and industry cannot be carried on without night work, there is a case for night work, but if you have a trade or industry which can be carried on without night work, which is not essential to the trade, the employer, the customer and the consumer, then, there is no justification for inflicting barbarities upon men by compelling them to a life of continual night work.
There are hon. Members in this House well acquainted with the three-shift system. They know all about their own people who work at nights. They know that a man is not continuously on the night shift; he gets alternate shifts. But the curse of the baking industry is from the time a man goes into the bakehouse at 16 and comes out of it wrecked and battered at 65, all his life he is condemned to work at night. Why should he have to do this? If it were suggested that the baking trade could not be carried on and that profits could not be made without it, there might be some justification for it. Nothing of the sort has been suggested. I look round and find that in every country in Europe, whether democratic or Fascist, they have abolished night baking, and in the Free State also. Here we are after all the years that I have been fighting and struggling for this thing I have to come at this time and plead to this House that this reform should be given to my people. Nobody knows the conditions of the life of the operative baker better than a man like myself who as had such a long practical experience. I do not think that people are willingly inhuman, and they do not willingly inflict these things upon other men. It is because of apathy, indifference and ignorance. These are the things that cause human misery.
I expect that the right hon. Gentleman will get up and say, "We have not had the report of the committee, and, therefore, I am unable to give you any indication about the matter." If I had the report of the committee in my hands, and it was against me, I would come to this House as a court of appeal, and I would take their arguments one by one and show where they were wrong. I ask this House to give justice in the name of humanity. It is sometimes said that this is simply sob stuff, but the case that I am putting here this afternoon is not sob stuff. It comes from the bottom of my


heart on behalf of tens of thousands of men in the baking industry who are unable to speak for themselves. It was suggested that the men in the baking industry did not want night baking abolished. Here is proof that 77 years ago they demanded it. I have been in the baking trade for 50 years, and every man to whom I have spoken, whether in the union or out of the union, and every baker's wife to whom I have spoken, has said, "Do, if you can, abolish night baking." I wish it were possible for some of the wives of operative bakers to come to this House and say what they think about night baking. I will quote what has been said by a far better master of the subject than I am. He said:
Come with me. I am about to start work. The time is eight o'clock on Sunday night. Church bells are pealing. Into the dressing room, off with the clothes, into the singlet, the old trousers, the old boots and apron, and over to the bakehouse, not much better than the dressing room.
He describes the heat, the work, and what they have to do, and says:
It is now eight o'clock in the morning. We have done a 12 hours' stretch, with about three-quarters of an hour break—not bad. Then home to bed to sleep in God's good daylight. You do not pick up much beauty sleep. Four hours through the night are worth so through the day. By day you hear the least sound. Up about tea-time, a look at the newspaper, a talk with the wife and kiddies. Eight o'clock something good on the wireless. Duty calls to the old dressing room. Same old routine. Another 12 hours. And it goes on night after night, and year after year.
That is the baker's lot. People may get up in this House, as I dare say they will, and suggest that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that the baker is content and must go on with his night work because the trade cannot be carried on without it. I hope that for once the interests of big business will not be allowed to dominate this position and that it may receive some defeat. We cannot injure big business very much if bakers do not work by night. If the interests of big business depend upon this system that I have described, then it is a pity that profits have to be wrung out of the very sweat and lifeblood of the decent men who work inside the bakeries.
I hope that the House will forgive me for making this rather long speech. I have attempted to put the case as moderately as possible and to show that

this thing can be done without injury to anyone, given the will and determination and courage to do it. This Bill, with all due respect, has not been very noticeable for either courage or determination. It has been a Bill of compromise, perhaps inevitable to a very great extent, but there is an opportunity here to do something which would make the Bill remembered for ever as the Measure which abolished night baking in Great Britain. May I make an appeal to the new Home Secretary? I am satisfied that he, after having heard me, is also full of sympathy, as everybody else always is, when I talk about this matter. But sympathy is not enough. Give me something practical; hold out some hope to these men. I do not ask for the moon. I have waited for this reform for 50 years, and if I have to wait another two, or indeed, three years I shall be content, if I am spared to see this curse of the baking trade removed from our midst.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: In rising to second the Motion, I cannot bring to my aid the practical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), nor bring to it the kind of devotion that almost tempts me to refer to him as my right hon. and Noble Friend. It would, in every sense, be a fitting thing if this House could do what my hon. Friend desires after 50 years of devoted service to a great social reform. I have just listened to a speech which by its very character must have touched Members in every part of the House, and I wish to add a very few words to the appeal to the Home Secretary to accept the new Clause. My view obviously is not the view of the practical baking operative, but that of the man who desires to see the problem through the spectacles of social peace and well-being. May I ask for the general assent of the House that night work is an undesirable form of employment and that it should never be required except for reasons that are imperative and unavoidable? I ask the House to test night baking by that standard. There are industries and occupations, such as transport and others of that character, where night work is imperative and unavoidable, but its imperativeness and its unavoidability in night baking is completely denied by the


unique experience which my hon. Friend has brought to our notice. We are now in this matter in a position of thoroughly undesirable isolation, and I hope that, by the will of this House this afternoon we shall bring ourselves into line with European countries.

6.14 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I am sure that all of us were greatly moved by the speech of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), who gave the kind of speech that rightly always impresses the House. It was a speech, first of all, by someone who knows the question about which he is talking in every detail, the practical side as well as the side of theory. It was also the speech of an hon. Member who has devoted many years of his life to what he believes to be a very great cause. I tell him at once that as I listened I was very much moved by the appeal that he made to me and to the Government, but I must point out certain considerations which make it impossible for me to respond to the appeal to-day.
First of all, the House must remember, however effective and however strong and moving the speech of the hon. Member may have been, and in many respects it was strong and impressive, that there is another side to the question. For many years past—it is evidenced by the fact that we have been talking about this question for 30 or 40 years—there have been complexities. I have made it my business during the time at my disposal to begin a study of this question. In recent years there have been a series of inquiries, some of them in favour of the abolition and some of them, for reasons good or bad, against the abolition of night baking. The view has been taken at more than one of these inquiries that the abolition of night baking would put up the price of bread, which, as the hon. Member himself said, would be a very serious matter for a great portion of the population. The view has also been taken that such an abolition would mean that the public would not be supplied with new bread. I have very little sympathy with that particular objection, because I am one of the few people who very much dislike new bread. Be that as it may, there is the fact that this is a very complex question, raising a good many issues outside the scope of the Factories Bill.
When the Factories Bill was introduced the view was taken that this was a question that had better be dealt with, if it had to be dealt with, specifically by a Bill devoted to that particular question. The view was held that a question of this kind, raising the issue of the restriction of hours of adult males, and founded, for the most part, as I think both hon. Members admitted in their speeches, upon social grounds rather than upon grounds of health and safety, should be dealt with not in the Factories Bill but in a specific Measure. At the time when the Bill was introduced there was a discussion as to whether it was better to have this question in the Bill or outside, if action was to be taken, and it was thought that, if specific action was to be taken, although on the grounds I have mentioned it might be more appropriate to deal with it in a special Bill, there were reasons to justify including a provision in this Bill. But before any provision could be included it was necessary to clear up the points of dispute between the two different views. Accordingly, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury knows better than anybody else, because he took a very prominent part in the earlier discussions, my predecessor set up a committee of inquiry to inquire into the whole question, hoping that we might have the report when we reached this stage of the discussion on the Factories Bill.
The committee of inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Alness, but the committee, unfortunately—I am not making any criticism of the committee—has not issued its report. I can assure hon. Members that, as far as I am concerned I have done my best to expedite the report. I am not giving away any confidences when I say that as soon as I came to the Home Office and saw the position I ventured to write to the chairman, impressing upon him the importance of our having the report when we reached this stage of our discussions. I am sorry to say—again I am not making any sort of criticism—the report is not ready, and as it is not ready I am not in a position, and I do not think that anyone in my place would be in a position, to make a statement either for or against the case that has been put to us this afternoon. I am afraid that we must wait until we get the report. I can assure the House that when we do get the report, the Government will at once give


attention to it, and we must then decide what action, if any, we should take. I cannot say whether it will be possible to take action in this Bill, if we do decide to take action. Obviously the Government must consider the report and the best way of dealing with the matter. That being so, I feel I can go no further to-day. I can, however, assure the hon. Member in all sincerity that I listened with great interest to the very effective case that he made, but I cannot give any undertaking in view of the fact that we have not yet got the report of the committee of inquiry.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I rise only for the purpose of putting a question to the Home Secretary. I appreciate the difficulty of his position in view of the fact that he has not received the report, but in the event of the report being received during the next few weeks, before this part of the Session ends, will he consider the advisability of including provision in another place? Would not that meet the difficulty if the report is received within a reasonable time?

Sir S. Hoare: I wish not to exclude any possibility, but we must have time to study the report and decide what action, if any, we are going to take. All that I can say is that we will study the report without delay, and we must then decide, if we are going to take action, whether it is better to take action within the four corners of this Bill, or by a special Measure.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: As a member of the committee, I should not like the Home Secretary unwittingly to give the impression that the absence of the report at this juncture is the fault of the committee of inquiry.

Sir S. Hoare: I specifically said that it was not.

Mr. Marshall: Obviously, I cannot take part in the discussion to-day, but there is this to be said on behalf of the committee, that they understood that the Report stage and the Third Reading of the Factories Bill would have taken place later, and they were frantically endeavouring to have their report ready by that particular time. However, owing to the exigencies of Government business

the discussion of the Bill has been brought forward seven to ten days earlier, and the consequence is that it has been absolutely impossible for the committee to get out its report in time. I should like it to be understood that there is no blame attaching to the committee. It has had a very onerous duy to perform and a very complicated matter to inquire into, and it has worked very hard to have its report ready, but owing to Government business having been expedited it has not been able to get its report ready for this advanced time.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I rise to support the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). The speech that he made had a tremendous appeal to the heart.

Mr. Lansbury: And the intellect.

Mr. Maxton: I am glad that interruption came from the right hon. Gentleman, because he knows perhaps more than anybody in this House that there is always a tendency to suggest that a speech that makes an appeal to the heart is not so appealing to the intellect. I think the case put by the hon. Member is unanswerable, not on sentimental grounds but on the grounds of common sense and business efficiency. He has spoken of the long years that he has been engaged in this propaganda. He is probably aware that I have as one of my leading constituents a gentleman who has done in Scotland similar work to what he has done in England among bakers. I refer to Councillor W. D. Hunter, of Glasgow, who is now 80 years of age. He has come to me at every election, and the only test question he has put to me has been whether I am in favour of the abolition of night baking and whether, if given the opportunity, I will vote for it in Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an opportunity of voting for it to-day.
I know the case from A to Z, not from practical experience but from having it put to me. It has been put to me clearly and definitely, and I do not need any Royal Commission or committee on the matter. I do not need the expert advice of Lord Alness, great as is my respect for his legal and judicial knowledge. It is a question for the ordinary commonsense man who lives in the ordinary way and meets bakers in the ordinary course


of life. I have a bakery immediately behind my home in London. I go home at all hours of the night, as many hon. Members do, and whenever I am going to bed these fellows are working at the bakery. When I go home in the early hours of the morning I run into them going in or out of the bakery. It is an unusual and exceptional thing for us to be walking the streets at five or six o'clock in the morning, and we think we are very hardly done by when we have to do that, but these men are doing it for a lifetime, tens of thousands of them, not on account of any exceptional emergency but on account of the day-to-day routine of their life.
The right hon. Gentleman could have saved himself the trouble of examining the committee's report. He could have applied his own common sense, which we know is very great. The reports of Royal Commissions or committees are not always very sensible. The right hon. Gentleman could simply have used his own common sense, his own judgment, his own power. He is the one man in this country who has the power. He could decide this question now, on the spot, and save himself trouble and save the House of Commons further legislation by making the decision which would abolish this blot from our social life.
The hon. Member referred to Messrs. Beattie who, he said, have a special interest in this baking business. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) represents a constituency in which their bakery is situated, and he is prepared to make any opprobrium which may arise on the part of Messrs. Beattie through the abolition of night baking. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has, I think, the biggest bakery in Great Britain in his constituency, the bakery of the United Co-operative Baking Society, a huge concern, the directors of which have declared again and again that for their thousands of employés they are led to urge that this bit of legislation should he put through, and that they are prepared to face the consequences, dealing as they do with a huge working-class population as their customers. They are prepared to face the baking of bread for hundreds and thousands of people in the West of Scotland under these conditions, quite satisfied that they can provide a good wholesome commodity to their customers at

reasonable prices and provide a more humane way of life for their employés.
For these reasons I shall support the hon. Member in the Division Lobby, but wish that the Home Secretary would give it active consideration. He has come quite recently to a new job. Admittedly he has to face a different type of problem from that which faced him in his previous terms of office at the India Office, the Foreign Office or the Admiralty. We know that in these jobs he has not been afraid to exercise his independent judgment, that he has not been unprepared to take risks and to stand the racket, which he has had to stand on occasion. This is a case where it is worth doing so again.

6.32 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I rise only to ask one question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I entirely agree with him that this is not a subject which is best dealt with in a Factories Bill, and I was also impressed by his argument that it would be better to await the report of the committee which has been set up. But while I agree with him in those two respects I am bound to say that I was deeply impressed by the case made for this reform, and among the many arguments which have been advanced the most cogent and appealing was the fact quoted by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield), that every other country in Europe has already introduced this reform. That is a very striking fact, and if it is the case then for the first time I feel a little compunction as an Englishman. It is an astonishing fact that every other country in Europe should have made this reform if all these difficulties are supposed to be attaching to it. The question I want to ask is this: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the committee will consider what has been done in other countries and the result that has followed in other countries, so that we may really know why this country should be in this exceptional position?

6.34 p.m.

Dr. Salter: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) addressed the House from the point of view of the operatives, the workmen. I am in a position to deal with the question from the point of view of the employer. I have been on the board of a large bakery for 20 years and I know the details and con-


ditions which apply in the trade. I should like to tell the Home Secretary that a very large number of employers and employing firms are looking to him and to this House to give them deliverance from night baking which they cannot secure for themselves. The firm with which I am connected are prepared, whatever the fate of this particular Clause, to abolish night baking and take the consequences. We know that there will be certain intensified competition but we are quite prepared to take this step, because after an experience of 20 years, and the advice of managers and experts of even longer and greater experience, we are convinced not only that the abolition of night baking is practical but that there is really no justification whatever for its continuance.
Some evidence was given before the committee of inquiry by an experienced manager of private businesses and co-operative business in this country and abroad, and in Canada, and he stated quite definitely
The abolition of night baking is entirely devoid of difficulty from the operative point of view. Any readjustment necessary can be overcome with ease by the management. The whole business is simply a matter of organisation.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury talked about purchasing brains and putting them in charge of the business. I am perfectly satisfied, from my large experience of the baking trade, that this matter is merely one of reorganisation in 99 cases out of 100, and that managers and firms hesitate to act upon their own and take steps to abolish night baking, before it is compulsory on all, because it would mean a certain amount of disturbance for a few weeks while the reorganisation was actually taking place. The Home Secretary referred to the question of costs. Where night baking has been abolished it has not been found to put up prices. That is not a matter of theory. In the case of my own firm we are satisfied that it will certainly not increase our costs but will diminish them, and that there will be no necessity for any augmentation of plant.
There will be many other advantages from the public point of view. There is certainly a higher percentage of illness among men who have to work at night than among those who work during the day. In my own firm we have had a

day and a night shift, and we have found that 75 per cent. of the total absences through illness has occurred among the night staff, and this figure has been consistent for a number of years. There is also a much higher percentage of accidents among men who work during the night than among those who work during the day, and we have also found that there is a higher standard of output as well as a greater quantity of output on the part of the day staff than there is on the part of the night staff.
I put it to the Home Secretary that in spite of the absence of this report the case is overwhelming for the adoption of this reform. It is not merely the desire of the operatives but the desire of a large number of employers. Individual firms feel themselves more or less helpless to bring this reform about unless and until it is the law and compulsion is applied to other competitors. I beg the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. The comfort, health, happiness and domesticity of 30,000 men are at stake, and I beg the Home Secretary to have regard to the overwhelming evidence there is in support of this change.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Denman: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) has succeeded in drafting a proposal so like one which came from the Government side that I was deceived into thinking that it was an Amendment put down by agreement. He has got almost the precise phraseology. In the Committee upstairs we were led to hope that we should be able to insert some Clause of this kind during the passage of the Bill, and we now understand that we may have the report of the committee within to days. If that is so, we may still have that hope, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us——

Mr. Marshall: I hope the hon. Member will not say that. I said that the discussion on the Factories Bill has been brought forward seven to 10 days.

Mr. Denman: Yes, and also that the committee hoped to produce their report in time for the Report stage. It is not an unreasonable inference to draw that the committee hoped to present their report within a fortnight.

Mr. Marshall: It is the hon. Member's own inference.

Mr. Denman: I agree, but before this Bill gets through another place, we may have that report, and the Government may have such a clear indication of what is desirable that it may still be possible to insert a Clause on these lines in another place. If the report makes such a Clause impossible of course we shall not expect it, but if it is reasonably possible to fulfil the expectation given in committee that a Clause on these lines would be inserted if the report justified it—if we could have that assurance I think the House would be ready to accept it.

Sir S. Hoare: I hope I have made the point clear. The Government must have time to consider the report and decide what action to take. If the Government have time and decide that action should be taken, and the Bill is not through another place, certainly we should abide by the undertaking given in Standing Committee. If the Government still decide to take action but there is not time to insert the provision in this Bill, then we shall have to take action by an ad hoc Measure some time in the future. In giving that undertaking, quite obviously, I do not exclude the possibility of the Government deciding not to take action. I speak with an absolutely open mind. I have tried to study the detailed history of this question. It is a complicated question, but I think I have made my own position and the position of the Government quite clear to the House.

6.44 p.m.

Sir John Haslam: I rise because I feel myself in a somewhat difficult position and I ought to explain it to the House. I have been connected with this trade for many years and I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). But the matter has been complicated by the appointment of the committee to inquire into the whole subject and, therefore, it would be almost an insult to the committee to pass legislation before it has reported either for or against. Although my heart, my intelligence and my experience of the trade all tend to take me into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, my common sense and feeling of justice to the committee and to the Home Secretary tell me that I must refuse to be tempted into that particular Lobby on this occasion. I thought I must explain my position to the House.
At the same time there is no real logical argument against the abolition of night baking. I represent one of the most industrial areas in the country, and I am always opposed to industry being penalised, especially if it has to compete with and suffer from foreign competition. That can never be said about the baking trade, except in so far as foreign competition has come into this country, and ought to abide by the laws and conditions here. All my life I have been a supporter of private enterprise, of the little man as opposed to the big man. There have grown up in this country huge combines which have utilised the conditions in the baking trade to their own ends. The result is that we see an increase in night baking, and naturally the individual trader has to follow. If the abolition of night baking injured anybody—I deny that it would, but if there were the possibility of its injuring anybody, it would be the huge combines, and I think they can well afford to be hit a little, if anybody has to be hit.
I am making these remarks as a result of a lifelong experience of the trade. One never gets unanimity in this country, but speaking in a general sense, the individual master bakers are in favour of the abolition of -night baking. I wish to impress that upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Some of us have admired the right hon. Gentleman's administration in various Departments. During the time I have been in the House, I have watched him in the three previous positions which he has occupied in the Government, and I have looked with admiration upon the way in which he has left his mark on those particular Departments of State. Who were the people who left their mark on history at the Home Office? Were they people who were afraid to bring forward legislation for the benefit of the working classes, or were they people who came out, perhaps a little before their time, who resisted the pressure of officialdom and interested parties and who said of any subject, "Is it right, is it decent, is it in the interests of the people who cannot achieve a right system of living without legislation?" It is the second type of people who have left their mark. I want my right hon. Friend to leave his mark on the legislation of this country as a great Home Secretary, and I do not think he could


do anything that would be more conducive to that than seriously to consider the report when it comes to hand. I hope the report will be in favour of the abolition of night baking. If it is, I hope my right hon. Friend will introduce the necessary legislation and that this long-standing grievance will be put right in the interests of all.

6.48 p.m.

Captain Sir William Brass: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not answer any of the arguments put forward by the advocates of the abolition of night baking, and he was quite right not to do so. He said that this was not the sort of Measure in which to include such a provision, although he explained that if he could do so and if the report of the Committee were satisfactory, he would be prepared to do it. Not having received the report of the Committee, my right hon. Friend obviously had to resist this particular Amendment, although from his remarks I gathered that he was really sympathetic towards the objects of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). All of us have great sympathy with those objects. The difficulty in which we are placed is that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam). I do not want to vote against this new Clause, but as the Home Secretary said, the Committee is now sitting, and he is awaiting its report. If that report is favourable to the abolition of night baking, my right hon. Friend is prepared to do one of two things, either to put a Clause into this Bill or to bring in some legislation later on which will deal with the matter. I think we ought to leave the matter in that way. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to withdraw the new Clause, on the undertaking which has been given by the Home Secretary that he is prepared to deal with the matter on its merits when the report is presented.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Short: I do not propose to delay the House by restating the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the proposed new Clause, which has as its object the abolition of night baking, particularly after the very convincing and human appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield). My hon. Friend's speech was of such a nature as to appeal both to our finer

sentiments and emotions and to our reason, and if the matter were left to a free vote of the House I think we should find, I hesitate to say a majority, but at any rate those who heard my hon. Friend's speech, in the Division Lobby with us. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not argued this matter, and realising his position, I do not blame him for not doing so. He said that the committee is sitting, that he expects a report at a later date, and that when that report is presented he will, in certain circumstances, take suitable measures. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that we are not concerned only with the decision of the committee, whatever it may be, but with the decision of the Government.
While the Government may well take into consideration the report of the committee, I appeal to them, having regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury, to look at the matter on its merits, to take into consideration not merely the final conclusion of the committee, but he arguments that have been put forward in support of the abolition of night baking; and to remember that this country, as has been pointed out, is in a position of splendid isolation on this matter, as every other European country has abolished night baking without any of the evil results to the community which it has been suggested might arise in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury dealt clearly and convincingly with the arguments made against the abolition of night baking. He told the House that the employers had not in recent years argued that the change would involve any increase in the price of bread, and he dealt with the question of the public's demand for new bread. I do not know what is the policy of the wives of hon. Members, but when I worked in a workshop—and I think it is the same to-day—the workmen did not take new bread for their breakfast, but wanted bread which was some hours old. I cannot believe that the argument that the public demand new bread has any weight. My hon. Friend also pointed out that certain firms had abolished night baking and that no adverse financial results had followed. I hope that when he receives the report of the committee, the right hon. Gentleman while taking that report into consideration, will examine the matter on its merits, for we are convinced that not only the opera-


tives but a large number of employers, and indeed the community as a whole, would benefit from the abolition of night baking.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes 125; Noes 228.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[6.57 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mander, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Denville, Alfred


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Drewe, C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Duggan, H. J.


Assheton, R.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Dunglass, Lord


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Channon, H.
Eckersley, P. T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Choriton, A. E. L.
Ellis, Sir G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Christie, J. A.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Emery, J. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Clary, Sir Reginald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Bernays, R. H.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Everard, W. L.




Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Furness, S. N.


Blaker, Sir R.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Cox, H. B. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Critchley, A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crooke, J. S.
Gledhill, G.


Brass, Sir W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Cross, R. H.
Granville, E. L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Culverwell, C. T.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bull, B B.
Dawson, Sir P.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bullock, Capt. M.
De la Bère, R.
Guy, J. C. M.




Hannah, I. C.
Magnay, T.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Maitland, A.
Simmonds, O. E.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Markham, S. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Hepworth, J.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Higgs, W. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spens, W. P.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (Wm'ld)


Holmes, J, S.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Moreing, A. C.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hopkinson, A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, P.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nall, Sir J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hunter, T.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Tate, Mavis C.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Patrick, C. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Keeling, E. H.
Peake, O.
Train, Sir J.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Peat, C. U.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Turton, R. H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G
Procter, Major H. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Latham, Sir P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wells, S. R.


Lewis, D.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Liddall, W. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lloyd, G. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. D. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Loftus, P. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rowlands, G.
Wise, A. R.


Lyons, A. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Withers, Sir J. J.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


McCorquodals, M. S.
Salt, E. W.
Wragg, H.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sandys, E. D.



McKie, J. H.
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Grimston.


Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Safety-first committees.)

In every factory where not less than one hundred persons are employed, and in every other factory where the Secretary of State deems it expedient, it shall be the duty of the occupier, in accordance with regulations to be made by the Secretary of State, to provide for the appointment of a safety-first committee consisting of representatives of the management and representatives of the workpeople to examine the causes of any accidents, recommend arty measures they may deem necessary to prevent accidents, and generally to promote conditions calculated to ensure safety.—[Mr. E. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
On this question of safety first there ought to be sufficient common ground among all Members of this House that would enable us to consider this new Clause apart from any political effects. The question of safety first is becoming increasingly important in view of the mechanisation and electrification of

industry. On the question of safety, particularly in industry itself, there is sufficient in common between us for an approach to be made to this question from all points of view. Injury in industry does not benefit anyone. From an employer's point of view, it increases cost of production, it creates friction, it creates difficulty with insurance companies when accidents increase, and it retards production. From an employé's point of view, also, it has no advantages. From an employé's point of view, it means that he loses his wages, that when he sets out to obtain compensation very often he does not receive adequate compensation and, in addition to that, when he has received a permanent injury, especially if he is incapacitated for life, it means that he has to go through a lot of legal quibbling before he can obtain even the elementary justice which has been decided on by this House.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we have sufficient in common


to enable us to approach the question apart from any political bias. The idea of these committees is that people will have an opportunity of pooling their experience in order that employers and employés may receive benefit. I have acted in a representative capacity in one of the largest factories in this country where one of these committees has been in existence, and arising out of that experience I am convinced that it would be greatly to the benefit of industry generally if only industry would adopt this course, and, seeing that industry is not prepared to do this, we are hoping that this House will see that it does. The big captains of industry are now prepared to consider the point of view of all people employed in industry. They are becoming less and less conservative, and as they become less and less conservative they find that it is in the interests of industry that they should take into consideration all points of view. These committees would provide for that being done. They would provide for the accumulated experience of all those who are employés in industry being used for the benefit of all. In addition this provision would enable this accumulated experience to be used for the purpose of carrying on educational activity inside the factories, so that those engaged in industry could take steps to prevent accidents occurring in the future.
These committees would also permit of the maximum amount of co-operation between all interests in order to avoid accidents. In factories those who are engaged in managerial and administrative positions are more and more having regard to the question of production and to the question of delivery dates, because in modern industry it is not only a question of the cost of production, but increasingly a very important factor is becoming the question of delivery dates. Those engaged in managing industry are having to watch the question of output and the question of delivery dates. Therefore, we find that more and more it is becoming important that someone should be appointed in each shop or department in order that he or she shall have the responsibility of keeping an eye on machines and on accidents that have taken place in the past, in order that industry may avoid a repetition of those accidents. It is a common saying that anybody's job is nobody's job, and, therefore, if we could only have someone appointed

in each department who would keep his eye on the question of safety first, he would accumulate experience in that department, and would then have the right to be elected to these committees. Such people would then pool their ideas and experience with the management, and the accumulation of these ideas and this experience would enable a large number of accidents to be prevented. These are just a few ideas arising out of my own experience.
I would like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that the Government are committed to this Clause. The Government have been represented at conference after conference held under the auspices of the League of Nations at Geneva and at the various conferences conventions have been passed, and now that a Factory Bill is being considered by this House, in order that this Government may be true to the commitments which they have undertaken at Geneva, a Clause of this character should be inserted in this Bill. I have been reading during the week-end the results of an investigation made by the American Government into the factory practice in Great Britain. I want to admit that the standard of factory practice in Great Britain and the standard of the administration of the factory laws in Britain are higher than in any other capitalist country in the world. This has been brought about very largely because of the industrial organisations which we represent, and also because various Governments, having had pressure brought to bear on them, have been prepared at different times to introduce regulations. As a result, we have been able to reach a standard in this country which is now the envy of the world as far as the capitalist countries are concerned.
There are one or two respects, however, in which we are inclined to lag behind. The report issued by the United States Department of Labour as a result of the investigation to which I have referred, is entitled, "British Factory Inspection." It points out that in 1923 the Home Office was specifically authorised, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of that year, to develop safety first organisations; that large employers had protested that they preferred to deal with the accidents prevention problem without specific legal requirements and


that Government officials had acquiesced in that point of view. It goes on to say that the chief inspector in his report for 1926 showed that progress in the safety movement had been "disappointingly slow." That is the point which I wish to stress. No doubt the Under-Secretary in reply will indicate that a number of employers have already carried out these proposals by voluntary methods. That is true, but voluntary methods are not satisfactory, and in treating the subject in that way, we are not being fair to industry itself.
We find that the big employers who have a modern outlook, and who pay regard to the interests of all the people employed in industry, are those who carry out proposals of this character, whereas the reactionary employers and the relatively backward employers, those who do very little welfare work, and do not allow industrial organisation inside their factories, those who are mostly responsible for victimisation, are the employers who refuse to carry out any such proposals. If the Home Office and this House are to be fair to the relatively progressive employers, they ought to see that the relatively backward employers are made to carry on their industries according to modern standards. I have here a document dealing with industrial eye diseases which contains an extract from the "British journal of Ophthalmology." This states:
A recent analysis of circumstances surrounding 70,000 accidents has led Heinrich of the Travellers' Insurance Company to the conclusion that 98 per cent. of all industrial accidents are preventable.
I do not accept that statement. I have sufficient know ledge of industry to enable me to say with some confidence that nothing like that proportion of industrial accidents could be prevented. The workmen have more regard for their own safety than to be responsible for the occurrence of accidents which are preventable, but it is a journal of the ophthalmic profession which makes the statement. It is not our statement. It also states:
As a result of inquiries of workmen attending the Royal Eye Hospital one can state that a multitude of firms, especially small firms, have unfortunately no safety organisations.
I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary is prepared to recommend the House to adopt the proposals in the new

Clause in order that this country may carry out the commitments which it has undertaken at Geneva, that the relatively backward employers may be brought up to the standard of the relatively good employers and that educational activities with regard to the prevention of accidents may be extended.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to second the Motion. This new Clause is an attempt to tighten up the preventive provisions of the Bill, and limit the possibilities of accident iii factory and workshop. I submit that it is a desirable proposition, because neither compensation for injury, nor penalties for neglect can take the place of adequate safety precautions, and whatever we can do to contribute to safety and to render both compensation and penalties unnecessary, will be a useful improvement in this Measure. I am associated with an industry which, in terms of employment, is one of the largest in the country. I refer to the railway industry. Sixteen years ago this House attached to the Railways Act, 1921, a Schedule which included a provision for committees of this kind. I do not know how many such committees exist throughout the country to-day, but they must run to several hundreds, and by common consent of employers and employed they have not only served a useful and important purpose, but have achieved a substantial part of their objective in the prevention of accidents. No one would desire to terminate their existence. They have proved a useful experiment and have made a desirable and important contribution to safety in an industry where the risk of injury is substantial. Those joint committees give the employers the benefit of the experience of the workers and give the workers a new sense of responsibility in their new relationship with the employers. They provide for both the maximum of mutual advantage, as a result of which there cannot fail to be a diminution in accidents and an increase in safety provisions and precautions. I hope the Under-Secretary will find it possible to accept the new Clause.

7.23 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I trust the Government will not accept the proposed new Clause. I am sure that every Member of the House desires the maximum of safety and the whole object of this Bill is to provide the maximum of safety, but


I believe that this Clause would defeat that very object. It means, if not directly at any rate by implication, devolving responsibility for safety from the manufacturer or employer to a committee, and it proposes to set up a statutory committee without any statutory authority as regards that committee's findings and recommendations. Suppose that a certain measure for safety were agreed upon by such a committee and that at a later date an accident occurred. In that case a bad employer who had had thrust upon him by law the obligation of having a committee could, to some extent, escape responsibility for negligence by pleading that the committee had sanctioned such and such a recommendation which he had carried out. I agree with the seconder that voluntary committees are eminently desirable, and I trust that that principle will be extended. But to place on the Statute Book a statutory obligation to set up a committee without giving that committee any statutory authority, would be to give some form of protection to bad employers which is the very last thing, I am sure, any hon. Member would wish to do.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I wish shortly to support the proposed new Clause. Apart from the good work done by safety first committees, I believe there is enormous value in employers and employed working together on questions of this kind. I have been chairman of such a committee for a number of years dealing with other subjects, and I know that it makes a great difference in the effective working of a concern to have that co-operation. I think my hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last is wrong in his apprehension. Rules and regulations depend for their proper functioning on the workpeople. If the workers do not understand and sympathise with rules, then the rules will not work properly. The value of a proposal of this kind is that it enables the employer to appreciate the worker's point of view and the worker to appreciate the object of the regulations made by the employer. In that way any plans that are made are carried out more whole-heartedly and sympathetically than if imposed from above by the employer. Government only works effectively with the consent of the governed, and that applies to a firm just as much as to a country. I believe that this Clause would

mark an advance in the right direction. It is desirable to do these things on a voluntary basis if you can, and it is possible to make progress on those lines, but, unfortunately, in some of the places where machinery of this kind is most required, the employers are not prepared to act voluntarily. It is necessary in those cases to have compulsion at some stage, and I feel that this proposal indicates a very reasonable way in which to take that step.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I wish to say at once that the Home Office are very much in favour of safety committees and recognise their value. I will not trouble the House with details, but hon. Members who have read the inspectors' reports know the great value which is attached to those committees. The result on industrial accidents of their existence has in many cases been worked out on a scientific basis by the inspectors, and figures have been given which show a considerable reduction in the accident rate in factories where safety first committees have been in operation. Nevertheless, I hope to persuade the House that it would not be in the best interests of the safety first movement itself to accept the proposed new Clause. Those who have experience of them will agree that what is vital in safety first committees is not the mere fact that they should exist, but that they should be animated with enthusiasm and should have the full co-operation and leadership of employers. We are all familiar with committees which just exist and do very little more, but such committees would be no good for safety first work in factories. The powers of the Home Secretary in this matter are very great, because my right hon. Friend can prescribe the machinery and he can even prescribe that a committee should be set up, but he cannot prescribe enthusiasm or co-operation on the part of those concerned, and that is the vital thing.
Although we have not got the statutory provision at present proposed in this Clause, my right hon. Friend has powers under Clause 38 that are much better adapted for this purpose, powers of which the Home Office has made very good use. In 1927 the Home Secretary of the day brought forward a draft Order under his powers, that are reproduced in the present Clause 38, for a more advanced safety


organisation, but in that draft Order he did not lay down a rigid requirement that there should be safety committees in all cases. It was more on the lines that a special safety-first scheme should be adopted or that a safety officer should be appointed. As a result of that draft Order the industry protested and offered, on a voluntary basis, to undertake the stimulation and working of these committees; and, in contradiction to what the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause said, we feel at the Home Office that the progress made under this voluntary scheme has been very satisfactory.
The great federations of employers have taken up this matter, one can say, with enthusiasm, and now it is the fact that there are safety committees in go per cent. of the works that would have come under the draft Order. As a matter of fact, we take the view at the Home Office that they really cover all the works, because the remaining 10 per cent. are largely works that are in a bad way owing to the trade depression or other causes and are hardly in a position to carry out a full scheme. The undertaking that we have from the employers' federations extends not only to the industries that would have come under the draft Order, but to other industries as well, and there is now a very large number of safety-first committees in those other industries; and not only so, but as this has been on a voluntary basis, there has been a proliferation of other very useful committees which could not really be specified in the draft Order—for example, area safety-first committees, on which the workpeople are represented and where there is a larger sphere of consultation between industry and industry, and it is an extremely useful part of the organisation.
We feel that progress in the safety-first movement is proceeding, on the whole, on a satisfactory basis, and we do not wish to disturb it by laying down these rigid statutory requirements which we feel may even have a bad effect, because it must be appreciated—and I think the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause will appreciate—that there is quite a number of factories employing more than 100 workpeople where it is not necessary to have safety-first committees. Take some of the clothing factories, where the most dangerous machines in use are sewing

machines and where it is hardly necessary in all cases to have such a committee. We are nervous that the vitality pf this most important voluntary movement, that is working so well at present, might be impaired by the fact that it had been laid down by law that everybody should have a safety-first committee, whether or not it was wise in all the circumstances. It might come to be looked upon as just something that is laid down by law and that you have to do, but that you need not take much trouble about. Those are the considerations which lead us to believe that we should do much better to bend our energies towards the further stimulation of this voluntary safety-first movement, bearing in mind that in safety-first committees enthusiasm and co-operation on the part of employers and employés are vital. We therefore think we should not be doing right to insert this Clause in the Bill.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The Home Secretary's assistant has not done himself credit in the speech which he has just made. He told us that the voluntary system was working very well and that he did not want it impaired by laying down a rule of law which might kill the system. But surely the system would go on just the same if those concerned wanted it to go on. The new Clause applies to factories with over 100 workpeople, but in factories employing under that number the enthusiasm of the voluntary system could still operate. If it is necessary at all for some regard to be paid to this kind of thing, it ought to be embodied in the law. Anybody who has worked in any kind of industrial occupation will realise that when an accident happens the workpeople generally get together and talk the matter over, in an endeavour to find out how it could have been prevented or could be prevented in the future. They say, "If this had been done, or if that had been done, this thing would not have happened." They do not like going individually to draw attention to these questions, but if there was an order or an agreement arrived at by law by which there were committees that could investigate these matters, something definite could be arrived at, and it would give them confidence. If their own representatives viewed the scene of an accident and could find out some kind of way of


improving the conditions, it would reassure their fellow workmates that something was being done.
As it is now, unless they have some voice in the matter, they feel that full satisfaction is not being given. When the inspector comes down, as he has to do after an accident, in order to make inquiries, it is the hardest thing in the world for him to get at the real feelings of the workpeople, because he is followed about by the management, and it is very difficult for him to get in touch with anyone without the management knowing, and naturally a workman does not like getting himself into what he thinks might be the position of being looked at by the management for having given information to an inspector. If these committees were set up, it would be their duty to recommend to the inspector what they thought ought to be done. In this connection I think the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) is getting very reactionary. I may not be doing him justice as to whether he is trying to get on the Front Bench there, but he seems now to be setting himself out to oppose a point of view when we put it forward. He told us that though this might be a good thing, it should not be made compulsory, but there is no argument in that. If it is a good thing, let it be made compulsory.

Captain Balfour: If a thing is good when it is voluntary, it does not necessarily mean that it will be good when it is compulsory. The mere fact of making it compulsory may spoil what, as a voluntary matter, is good and may prevent the representatives of the employés being able to get full justice for those whom they represent.

Mr. Tinker: The hon. and gallant Member admitted that where there were good employers, they were doing good by the voluntary system, but he also pointed out that where there are bad or reactionary employers they do not adopt these committees, and the result is that we are not getting the benefits that we should get if the system was applied in all cases. I agree that where they are carrying it out by voluntary efforts, good comes from it, but where they are not, and there is no compulsion upon them, we are not getting that benefit. Even in the mining industry there is a pro-

vision in an Act of Parliament that the workmen's representatives may visit the scene of an accident and enter into a report book what they think ought to he done. We have had that power for a long time, and where it is operated it is very much appreciated.
I think that sort of thing could be included in this Bill. We are entering on a big future in this Factories Bill, and if we do not get the matter put right now, it will be very difficult to get it done afterwards. My experience as a Member of Parliament has been that once you have passed an Act of Parliament, it is very difficult afterwards to get it altered within a number of years, because you are told that Parliament has only just passed an Act, that the matter has been thoroughly examined, and the question is asked, "Why should we alter it until it has had a good trial?" Therefore I think it is necessary now to have this Clause inserted, so as to give the benefits of this system to industry, with the good will of both workmen and employers, for the prevention of further accidents.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I have listened with great interest to the excellent speeches of those who have supported this Clause, and I quite agree that this question of safety first should be approached, not from a party point of view, but from a general point of view. We are all in favour of doing what we can in the matter of safety first, but I must confess that I feel that this new Clause is not likely to get us much further forward. I speak as one who is closely associated with industry and who has had some considerable experience of this matter. I feel that where you want to get the best results, they are best obtained on a voluntary basis. Much progress has been made in this matter, and I think that were you to take away the voluntary aspect of it, as the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) said, you would to a great extent destroy the advantage that you are trying to get. I was not quite able to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Ridley). He said that many big employers were carrying out admirable safety-first work in conjunction with their employés in large factories, and he went on to say that there were many other factories where this work was not being carried out. They were


presumably the smaller factories, but under the proposed new Clause itself the smaller factories would not be covered. I do not want to labour that point, however.
It seems to me that ultimately this question must be a matter to be dealt with by the inspectors of the Home Office I, like the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), have some association with the coal industry, but my own experience is that very often it is extremely difficult to have an active committee carrying out inspection in the collieries when only too often the facilities which are made possible under the Act are simply allowed to lapse. For these reasons, I feel that it would be better to leave the matter as it is at present, to do all that we can to encourage safety first committees by voluntary methods, and at the same time not in any way to set up a rival or even a complementary authority to that of the Home Office inspectors. I think that ultimately the question of the impartial investigation of accidents must fall on the inspectors, and that we should be making a mistake in setting up anything which might be considered a rival authority.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: I agree with the hon. member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) that this question should be decided on non-party lines, and I hope that he will carry that spirit of independence to the Division Lobby. As far as I was able to follow the argument of the Under-Secretary, I gather that there is no difference of opinion between him and the movers of the Amendment as to the desirability of safety committees being set up in practice if there are over 100 employés, or even where less than 100 are engaged. The difference of opinion seems to be as to whether it is desirable or necessary that the obligation to set up a committee should be made compulsory or should be left to the co-operation and enthusiasm of those now engaged on the work. If the Under-Secretary were able to say that in every factory some such safety committee was in operation, and that there were no exceptions from this voluntary effort on the part of employés and managements, our attitude might be different.
We all know, however, that where the committees are in existence, they exist because of managers or employers who are well disposed towards this movement. They are not the firms at whom this new Clause may be said to be directed. We are anxious to get at the employers who are not so much concerned for the comfort and safety of those whom they employ. We want to get at the unscrupulous employer who is not prepared to spend a shilling to ensure greater comfort or safety for his employés. It is because the Under-Secretary cannot give us any assurance that if this voluntary system continues there will be any increase in the number of the safety committees that we must press the new Clause. We would join with him in congratulating those voluntary committees on what they have done, and if we were to take a vote of them I am sure they would be in favour of a compulsory system in order that other factories which do not have these committees may be brought into line, and some measure of security allowed to persons in their employ.
Industrial experience teaches us that in 50 per cent. of the cases compulsion has to be applied if you want the right thing done in these matters. Some of us have worked in factories and have witnessed accident after accident, some of which have succeeded each other from exactly the same cause. Because there has been no safety committee and no attention has been paid by the management to the cause, there has been a repetition of the accidents. With the increase of industrial conditions there has been an increase in the number of accidents. Time and time again it has been proved that those accidents have occurred because no proper precautions have been taken to secure their prevention. I hope the Under-Secretary will acknowledge that as long as there are factories not prepared to adopt the voluntary system, the cause of accidents should receive the attention of some authority apart from the factory inspectorate. I think, therefore, that Members would be justified in supporting the degree of compulsion represented by this Clause in order to secure the utmost possible measure of safety of those employed in the large industrial establishments.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: I support the Government in objecting to this proposed


Clause, and I hope that no Member will accuse me of being a reactionary for so doing. This system of safety first and measures of that character have been highly developed in the industries with which I have had the honour of being connected. I object to the Clause for the reason that has already been given, that compulsion of this character applied to all industries where over 100 people are employed would materially affect those voluntary arrangements which are now existing and working very efficiently. I agree with the Under-Secretary that the great thing about the safety first committee is that there should be enthusiasm stimulated by somebody in the factory who has devoted himself to the work. The system with which I am familiar is that somebody in a large works entirely separated from the workpeople and almost independent of the employer, who may be a medical man, or the assistant to a medical man, has the duty of studying this question. He makes reports not only to the management, but to the safety first committee. I should be extremely reluctant that these voluntary organisations, which are working so successfully and are more widespread than they used to be, should be interfered with by any rules and regulations imposed on a factory by the Home Office.
Of course, there are good and bad employers. There are good and bad employés as well. Our experience is, and it must be admitted, that many accidents could have been avoided if employés took the reasonable care of themselves which employers try to impress upon them is necessary for the purposes of safety. The hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause quoted from some document that probably 98 per cent. of the accidents could be avoided. He did not accept that figure, but thought it might be too high. I venture to say, however, that the bulk of accidents in most works could be avoided with reasonable care by employés. Our experience in our own works is that with the teaching, enthusiasm, the education and the explanations given by competent men who study safety problems, these accidents can be reduced in a remarkable way.
The good employer from this point of view is not necessarily the employer who has a safety committee. He is a man who does not have a bad record in acci-

dents. He may succeed in doing that without any safety committee at all. He may have other means of doing it. He may, possibly, have a man on the staff whose sole duty is to go round and induce men to take care of themselves, and to take the necessary precautions against accidents. That is a good employer. The fact that a man has a sort of safety committee does not necessarily make him a good employer. If these good employers were to be forced by the Home Secretary to appoint a safety committee with regulations and rules made by the Home Office in place of some much better scheme which he may already have in operation, it would not tend to improve their record.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: The House will be very reluctant to do anything which would impede the development of voluntary safety first committees. The issue which the House and the Government have to decide is whether safety first committees are desirable. If they are desirable, they cannot be left to voluntary effort. I agree with the Under-Secretary when he said that this House cannot inculcate a spirit of enthusiasm. The thing which is of greater importance even than enthusiasm in matters of this kind, is the experience of the people who are in daily contact with the life of a particular industry. Without the assistance of the workpeople, the employer is divorced from a vast fund of experience which is known o the work-people alone. It is true that the factory inspector, in the general sense of the layout of the industry, of the machinery and of the overhead shafts and counter-shafts, are the people who can rightly define the nature of a safety measure or device, but in a multitude of industries, particularly in factories where there are a number of small machines, it is impossible for anyone other than the workpeople to know in what precise detail any of the dangerous aspects of their operations may be safeguarded.
It is because of this vast fund of daily experience which should come to the knowledge of industry that I support the new Clause. In the days at the conclusion of the Great War and the years immediately following, the idea of committees was very popular in this country, particularly in the engineering and textile trades. There was an enormous amount


of experience which industry enjoyed because it took into consideration for the first time the experience and knowledge of the people who were employed. The Under-Secretary would, I should have thought, have gladly grasped this opportunity of tapping this vast reservoir of experience in respect to safety first measures instead of leaving the matter to voluntary effort, however good it may be. If safety first is desirable, it is the duty of the House to see that the desirability is made operative by such a proposal as this.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I rise to ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the position which he has taken up. I was greatly surprised at the illogical attitude which he adopted. He stated that we have in Clause 38 certain provisions which would meet this situation, but I would point out that Clause 38 deals only with accidents after they have occurred in a certain factory or type of factory, and that the Clause before us has as its object to prevent accidents occurring. Listening to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour) and another hon. Member opposite I was greatly struck by their deprecation of the Home Office using force or compulsion against those who, the hon. Members themselves admit, are bad employers. They have agreed that these voluntary safety committees are fulfilling a very useful purpose, that they are supported by the good employers and that it is only the bad employers who do not support them. Now that we ask for legislation to deal with the bad employers—I like the word "legislation" much better than "compulsion" or "force"—hon. Members raise their hands in horror and say, "You must not use compulsion."
I think it will be agreed that in many industries there would be safety-first committees but for the fact that the workers are afraid to approach the employers to ask for them. We know that even in factories with 100 workers men will hesitate before they step forward to approach an employer who has not the workers' interests at heart to ask for safety devices or for safer conditions, and legislation on these lines would strengthen those men in their approach to a bad employer. It would also arouse enthu-

siasm in many other places for the introduction of safety committees, because the men would know that they had the law and the Home Secretary and even the Under-Secretary behind them.
Before my entry into this House I was an employé on the mechanical side in a large newspaper association and I take this opportunity of saying that as regards the introduction of safety devices and safety conditions the newspaper indusry in this country has set a very good example, and it is not right to say that employers who have set a good example would be affected if any force, or compulsion or legislation were applied in order to bring all employers up to their standard. The newspaper industry requires men to work at times under rush conditions. Newspapers have to be produced at the maximum speed, have to be got out on to the streets as soon as possible and yet the safety devices and conditions in the newspaper industry are such that, I venture to say, the accident rate there is as low as in any industry in the country.
If that state of affairs can be brought about in one industry, it can be done in all industries. The Under-Secretary spoke of smaller industries with, perhaps, 100 or so employed in a factory, and mentioned the clothing industry. Apart from the question of the sewing machinery in a clothing factory there are conditions of employment which would be looked into by any safety first committee. There is the condition of the workshop itself, there is the question of ventilation. Every recognised newspaper office has a "chapel" and every man in each department is a member of the chapel. They have a father of the chapel, or shop steward, and a clerk of the chapel. These two office-bearers are recognised by the employer and, as representatives of the men, can approach the employer at any time to present the views of the men on questions of ventilation, safety or other matters.
I would ask the Home Secretary to look upon this new Clause for the prevention of accidents merely as a logical step forward from what has already been done. Even bad employers must provide adequate first-aid appliances, and it is only logical to say that instead of having appliances to deal with accidents and instead of setting up committees to discuss accidents after they have occurred it is better to ensure collaboration between an employer


and his employés to prevent accidents. As the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) said, the employer would get the knowledge and the experience of the workers and the workers would get the knowledge and experience of the employers. I ask the Government, therefore, to accept this Clause, so that the workers will understand that even in the great rush that is taking place in connection with the Government's rearmament programme the Government are concerned to take all steps to prevent accidents.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: The Home Secretary, I think., is by this time convinced that if a measure is a good measure, it is better that it should be made compulsory upon all employers rather than be left to their free choice, because in those conditions the good employer will adopt it and the bad employer, who by hypothesis is the one whom it is wanted to get at, will ignore it. I should think that is a proposition which hardly needs argument or which the right hon. Gentleman will seek to oppose. My hon. Friend who moved the new Clause said this ought to be a non-party matter, and therefore I am sure he will not mind if I point out that there are two dangers in the Clause as drafted which will have to be met before it is accepted. It is of the highest importance that the onus of seeing that a factory is safe shall remain where it now is, and that is upon the owner or occupier of the factory. I am not saying that anyone on this side of the House thinks otherwise, but it must be obvious that if by Statute there must be a safety committee in every factory, we do run the risk of transferring the onus of saying that a factory is safe from the owner of the factory to that safety committee. While I am very much in favour of the principle of the Clause, and earnestly hope that the Home Secretary will be able to accept the principle, I think it will be necessary to draft the Clause in such a way as to make it quite certain that the onus of seeing that a factory is safe remains where it is.
Unless we do that, the introduction of safety first committees under statute might only have the result, in the worst cases, of providing a safety curtain behind which the bad employers could take refuge. When accidents occurred as a result of a breach of the provisions of the Factories Acts it would be easy for a

bad employer to say, "It has nothing to do with me. I have done everything called for by the Statute. I have appointed a safety first committee on which the workers have equal representation with myself, and they did not point out that this provision of the law was being broken. Therefore, unless you are to say that the workers' own representatives were negligent, you cannot say that I have been negligent."
Safety first committees have proved their value; that is common ground. The logical step forward seems to be to recognise that good employers are anxious to discharge their obligations, and that bad employers, who have not appointed committees, should have placed upon them the compulsion of legislation to make them go as far as other people have gone by voluntary action. I do not want what I am saying to be understood as in any way adverse to the safety first committees. I think the Debate has proved that the case for them is unanswerable. I hope that the Home Office will act in such a way as to avoid the worst objection which can be brought against them.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. Gentleman who moved the new Clause should feel highly satisfied with the Debate. His arguments are strongly supported in the last report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops. If hon. Gentlemen would look at it they would find out how many lives are being saved and young people prevented from being maimed for life, as a result of the establishment of safety first committees, and they would then support the Clause. I have sympathy with the attitude adopted by the Home Office. They take the course that if we do anything to destroy the voluntary nature of safety first work we might do more harm than good. Applying that principle, there would today, be no fire brigades, libraries, sewers or water supplies. The Tory party, sitting on these benches in 1911, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced his National Health Insurance scheme, showed that the Tory mind was then exactly what it is to-day. They said: "Why do you bother with the medical profession? If you compel the profession to come into this scheme, the standard of medical service will de-


cline. The doctors would go on strike if they were placed under the panel system." Nowadays they would go on strike if any suggestion were made that the panel system should be abolished.

Mr. E. Smith: They would lose the fees.

Mr. Davies: Yes, at 9s. a time. We are dealing with a very serious problem. If hon. Members would look at the document I mentioned they would probably be frightened at what is happening in this country. The increase in accidents in the factories of our land is, according to the last report, simply colossal, and as they affect the young people in the factories of the land they are terrible. I think that we have made out our case for transforming all that is good in the voluntary system into a compulsory system. If the Tory party had their way,

education would be carried on by a voluntary system in this country to-day.

Sir J. Haslam: Oh!

Mr. Davies: I do not regard the hon. Member as a good Tory. He agreed with us on several occasions in Committee, and I do not take him as an example of the reactionary Tory. We intend to register our opinion on this Clause in the Division Lobby. The hon. Gentleman who is Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office is young. I venture to prophesy that he will see the day come when the Tory party themselves will do, on behalf of the factory workers of this country, what we are now proposing in this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 202.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
[8.20 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Adamson, W. M.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Barnes, A. J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Burn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Leonard, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Mathers, G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Foot D. M.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Owen, Major G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Beit, Sir A. L.




Bernays, R. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rankin, Sir R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brass, Sir W.
Hepworth, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Higgs, W. F.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Holdsworth, H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Holmes, J. S.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Salt, E. w.


Gary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Selley, H. R.


Channon, H.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Latham, Sir P.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leckie, J. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Crooke, J. S.
Lewis, O.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J, J.
Spens, W. P.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Dawson, Sir P.
MaCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Magnay, T.
Tate, Mavis C.


Eastwood, J. F.
Maitland, A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eckersley, P. T.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Train, Sir J.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Turton, R. H.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Emery, J. F.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Munro, P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nall, Sir J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Gibson, Sir C, G. (Pudsey and Otley)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wise, A. R.


Gledhill, G.
Peake, O.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Peat, C. U.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wragg, H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.



Gritten, W. G. Howard
Procter, Major H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr.


Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M
Furness.


Hannah, I. C.
Ramsbotham, H.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension as to laundries.)

(1) For the purpose of meeting without over-time employment pressure of work recurring on particular days of the week, the total hours worked in a day by women in laundries may, on two week days other than Saturday in any week, extend to ten hours, and the period of employment on those days may extend to twelve hours and may begin at any time not earlier than six o'clock in the morning and end at any time not later than nine o'clock in the evening:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall affect the provisions of this Part of this

Act with respect to the total hours worked in a week.

(2) The Secretary of State may, as regards factories of which the occupiers avail themselves of this extension, by regulations make such modifications in the provisions of this Part of the Act which require that the period of employment and intervals allowed for meals and rest shall be the same for all women and young persons, and that no woman or young person shall be employed during any such Interval, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.—[Colonel Sandeman Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In 1907 a Factory and Workshops Act was passed dealing specially with the position of laundries, and permitting women to work in laundries for one extra hour on four days in the week other than Saturdays, provided that that period of time was deducted from the other days. Laundries are in a very particular and peculiar position. They collect, process and return their work in the same week. The work is collected on Mondays and Tuesdays, and mid-day on Monday is about the earliest time at which the first process can be started. The washing has to be sorted, washed, calendered or ironed, dried and packed, and each process takes from one to two and a-half hours per load of work. Short hours are worked on Monday, long hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and shorter hours again on Friday and Saturday. It is, therefore, impossible until Tuesday or Wednesday for any laundry to know within 10 or 15 per cent. the amount of work with which it will have to deal. This sort of thing occurs every week throughout the year, and, therefore, Clause 70 of the Bill will not meet this particular case.
I have been dealing with the ordinary house laundry, with which, I suppose, every Member of the House is acquainted in some way or another; but there is another department of laundry work which also deserves consideration by the House. That is the work of ships' laundering, which is a very peculiar and difficult trade. Some of these steamers, which do a quick turn round when they come in, require a quick laundry, and I know that, unless provision is made which will enable ships' laundries to cope with the work that is given to them, certain ships, in the Canadian trade for example, if they cannot get their work done in my constituency, will have it done in Canada. I am not prepared to see my constituency sacrificed unnecessarily, and I put it to the House that this is a matter for special consideration in this country.

Mr. White: I beg to second the Motion.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I desire to oppose this Clause. I join issue with the Mover when he says that it is impossible to carry on a laundry business without this alteration in the Bill. The Clause proposes that the period of employment
may begin at any time not earlier than six o'clock in the morning and end at any time not later than nine o'clock in the evening.
It is seriously proposed that, in an industry where the overwhelming majority of the workers are young girls and women, a day which could extend over a maximum period of 13 hours shall be provided for in a Factory Act in 1937. I say that, no matter what the industrial difficulties of the employer might be, there is nothing that would justify the possibility of women and young persons being employed over a period of 13 hours in one day. When one realises the humid, steamy and heated atmosphere in which these persons work, the proposal becomes more monstrous still. The Mover suggested that it was impossible to do without this extension. That I challenge. The biggest laundry the country, catering exclusively for working-lass trade, never extends its hours beyond 8.30 in the morning to 5 o'clock in the evening. If there were a justification on this question of collecting and returning within the same week, it would apply most strongly among the working classes, who have greater difficulty in providing the necessary changes of raiment to last for two weeks. But when you have the fact that dozens of laundries, catering exclusively for the working class, are quite able to carry on their business without this extension, the case against the Clause becomes even more overwhelming. The Minister has found it necessary to make some exemptions but there is nothing that we have come to yet which would be nearly so abominable as this provision for a maximum on any working day, including mealtimes, of 15 hours, and I hope that no amount of pressure will induce him to accept the Clause.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I very much hope that the Government are going to resist this Clause because, if they once begin giving way to insidious vested interests which may try to get outside the terms of the Bill, a great many cases will be put up.


The hon. and gallant Gentleman used an argument which seemed to me to fit in with the needs and desires of a great many other industries. Of course, it is more convenient for everyone to go on doing what has been done in the past and not to make any change, but we have to look at it from the point of view of the women and young persons employed. If it is going to be said that it is a good thing for people to work long hours on one day and have a holiday on another, why not apply it to all industry? Let us have three half-holidays a week and 15 or 16 hours on other days. But, if you are going to start working on a principle of that kind, you could hardly choose a worse case than laundries, because there you have young persons, girls in many cases——

Mr. Magnay: Young persons are not mentioned here at all.

Mr. Mander: I was not using the term "young persons" in the technical and legal sense. I meant young persons over the age of 18. They have to work under conditions of great heat, which impose a great physical strain. I can see no reason at all why any concession should be made in this case, picked out from all the others that might be brought forward. The real difficulty is that customers in almost any trade are inclined to be a little unreasonable, and it is said that the customers of laundries are particularly unreasonable and will always insist on sending clothes in at the latest possible moment, wanting them back at the earliest date and grumbling because they do not get them. If hours of work were limited for all laundries throughout the country, they would all be in the same position and the customer could do nothing. He would have to alter his habits and fit in with the arrangement that the State laid down on behalf of the workers. In some cases, particularly large laundries, it is possible to even out the week's work. Where you have contract work, it can be done at the weekend and, certainly in the larger laundries, it is possible to arrange for a steady flow of work through the week.
I very much hope that the Government are not going to begin going down the hill of concession. They have been very good in many cases in bowing to the will of the House and accepting Amendments, but no will of the House has been manifested to-day. We have had this put

forward from one part of the country alone. We have not heard the argument put from the point of view of the whole laundry industry. I hope the Government will require much more case put up, because it will make a good deal of difference to the time occupied on the Bill if they are going to start making concessions.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I really think that we ought to dispose at once of the idea of these insidious vested interests. It must be a very insidious vested interest which could penetrate the hon. Member's domestic circle. The Home Office have made some inquiries into this matter. It is not really a question of representations put forward from a particular part of the country. We have, since the Committee stage, asked superintending inspectors all over the country to collect information as to the position with regard to laundries, and the information at our disposal indicates that there is a real case for this Clause. The hon. Member who spoke last said it would be for the customers to alter their habits. Does he realise who the customers are? They are the housewives of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jagger: You made them do it during the War.

Mr. Lloyd: Even housewives may alter their habits in those special circumstances. It is a fact that the laundry does not come in very early on Mondays. On the other hand, the customers want it back at the week-end. They want their husbands to appear in their Sunday best each week-end regularly, even if they have not a great supply of washable articles.

Mr. Jagger: And it can be done.

Mr. Lloyd: It can be done if the laundry is delivered regularly by the week-end. Our information is that there is a certain unusual rhythm in the weekly work of laundries which is not to be found in any other industry. At the beginning of each week the articles are collected, then there is a process of sorting that has to be carried out, and many laundries do not begin actual work until late in the morning, in some cases midday on Monday. The work has to be completed for the week-end and you get a period of special stress towards the end of the week. The work is con-


fined to women and it is not nearly so necessary to lay down rigid rules for their protection as it is in the case of young persons.

Mr. Lee: What would be the effect of the latter part of the Clause?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a different point. It has always been the practice to lay down that the hours of employment and for meal intervals for women and young persons shall be the same. It is entirely for the purpose of facilitating the discovery of evasions of the law by factory inspectors. If an alteration is to be made with regard to women and not to young persons, you must relax that general provision which is normally made that the periods for meals and so on shall be the same. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing more in it than that.

Mr. Lee: Is it clear that they get 12 hours for women, but they do not get it for young persons?

Mr. Lloyd: Absolutely. It is not a 12-hour period of employment, but a 10-hour maximum period of work on these particular days, but that does not permit the 48-hour week to be in any way lengthened. If there are these extended hours for the particular days, it means that there must be a corresponding shortening on the other days. If there were not that overriding provision that the maximum hours for the week must not be lessened, I would not be taking the view that there is a strong case for this Clause at the present time. It is merely that the rhythm of work in the laundry industry makes it better to work longer hours on some days in the week and shorter hours on other days without any prejudice to the working week itself. I will give some examples that we have had. I have in front of me particulars of the Co-operative laundries in a large number of districts. I have them more or less for the whole of the country. I will take the Scottish Wholesale Co-operative Society, about which we heard regarding bakeries earlier to-day. They work on Monday from 8 to 5.3o; Tuesday, 8 to 5.3o; Wednesday, 8 to 5.30; Thursday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and Friday, 8 to 6. At Stockton-on-Tees the Co-operative Laundry does not start until

10 a.m. on Monday, and it goes on until 6 p.m., and on Thursdays it starts at 8 in the morning and goes on until 8 in the evening.

Mr. Mander: Are they supporting the new Clause?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Member should apply to the representatives of the Co-operative Society. There is one laundry— the Midland Co-operative Laundry—where they do not start until 2 p.m. on Monday and go on until 7 P.m.

Mr. Riley: Do any of them go on until 9 o'clock?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I have anything later than 8 in these particular figures, but the hon. Member will appreciate that if a laundry worked until 9 in the evening, it wouild not be able to start before 9 o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Jagger: The hon. Gentleman does not quote the Co-operative Laundries Federation, which is larger than all the others.

Mr. Lloyd: The Scottish Wholesale Cooperative Society is a large society.

Mr. Jagger: It is a big society, but has a very small laundry. The biggest laundry in England is at Manchester.

Mr. Lloyd: But these are substantial co-operative societies. The point that I wish to make to the House is that these figures from the Factory Department of the Home Office definitely give the information that there is an unusual rhythm in the work of the laundries during the week. Bearing in mind that this is a relaxation for women only with regard to the daily period of employment, and does not extend to the weekly limit, I suggest to the House that we ought to vote for this new Clause.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Birkenhead (Colonel Sandeman Allen) moved many Amendments like this one in the Committee upstairs, but happily for us he did not impress the Government as much in Committee as he seems to have done this evening. He was more eloquent this evening than I have heard him on any previous occasion, and I should imagine that his eloquence was


greater perhaps because he knew that he was splitting the Liberal party at the same time.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I did not.

Mr. Davies: And having split the Liberal party he has got the Government to support his new Clause. Those who are conversant with the laundry business—I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for the Clayton Division of Manchester (Mr. Jagger) is very closely connected with this work and knows a great deal about it, as his speech shows—know that, if the Clause were intended to apply for rush purposes in connection with holidays, then our objection to it would not be as strong as it must be in making it universal in respect of every week in the year. I think that that probably is the fundamental difference between us and the supporters of the new Clause, except that we are very disturbed when any section of industry comes forward to Parliament and wants certain exemptions and exceptions from the general rule of law. When we were in Committee the aerated water manufacturers wanted exemption, and there is another exemption in respect of dairies. They have not enough bottles to go round. That is what we are told.
Let me remind the Secretary of State for the Home Department—and he knows it as well as I do—that if he gives way to-night to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, there will be two or three Private Members' Bills to upset this law next October, November or December when we meet, just as is being done now, in respect of shops legislation, ice cream and newsagents, because they want their special people exempted from the common round of human beings. We shall have no hesitation on principle in dividing the House against the hon. and gallant Gentleman, not only because of what is contained in this Clause, but because whenever he moved an Amendment in Committee upstairs, it was a most reactionary proposal.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I want particularly to raise one point, which I do not think has yet been raised by any other speaker, and that is the form in which this Clause is drafted. I would invite the attention of the House to the wording of Subsection (2) of the Clause. Leaving out some of the words and simply reading the

operative part of the Clause, it is as follows:
The Secretary of State may … by regulations make such modifications in the provisions of this Part of the Act … as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.
That is very widely drawn, and, as I have endeavoured to point out to the House on one or two occasions before, a form of words like this, giving the Secretary of State the power to make any modifications he thinks fit in the law of the land, is open to very serious objections. I ask the Lord Advocate to give his attention to this particular point. This is our old friend known as the Henry VIII Clause. As the Lord Advocate knows, this question was very closely considered by the Committee on Ministers' Powers, and they said that a Clause of this kind should be embodied in legislation only where there were special reasons for so doing. Special reasons do not exist here obviously, because it is quite unnecessary, for the purposes which the Mover has in mind, that the Clause should be drafted so widely.
All that the sponsors of the Clause are anxious to bring about is a certain readjustment of hours. I am not now discussing whether that is desirable or undesirable, but it would have been perfectly easy to provide that the hours to be worked in a certain week should be readjusted, and that more should be worked at the week-end and fewer during the middle of the week, and to have given the Secretary of State power to make that readjustment in the case of any particular factories or industries or series of industries. In order to do that, it is entirely unnecessary to give the Secretary of State the powers that are given by this particular Clause to make any regulations which may appear to him to be necessary or expedient. The point I want to make is simply that although this particular Subsection refers to the period of employment with intervals allowed for meals, it is so worded that the Secretary of State can make any modifications he pleases in the particular part of the Act. Even if the Government accept the Clause, I hope that before the Bill reaches another place they will closely consider the matter and see whether it is not possible to have a less objectionable form of words.

8.55 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I regret that I was not in the House during the earlier part of


the Debate on this Clause. The reason for my absence is a warning to the Government, because I have been addressing a large body of women in Caxton Hall, some of whom are ardent supporters of the present Government, and I have been making their flesh creep by telling them of the terrible things there are in this Bill, one of which relates to laundry workers and the other to cheese makers. I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that he is dealing not only with a small number of people now present in the House, but with very large numbers of informed and organised women who are watching the Clauses of this Bill very carefully and who, while they welcome certain improvements in the Bill, are very much disturbed by such Clauses as this. When I saw that the hon. and gallant Member had moved this Clause. I thought that there was one comfort in that the Government would not accept it, but when I come into the House I find that they have done so.
As one who has had considerable experience in organising women, I maintain that those who work, even in the most modem laundries, would not desire such an extension of hours as is proposed in this Clause. Even in the modern laundries, when the worker comes to the end of long periods of employment she finds that the conditions become wearisome. We have to remember that there are many laundries that are not modern. Laundries whose proprietors desire to organise on more modern lines are handicapped by many of the small laundry owners who, somehow, always seem to get the ears of Conservative Governments, and drag down the standard of employment for the whole trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger) has pointed out what those of us who worked in connection with this problem during the War period knew, that this system when it had to be operated for the convenience of the Government worked perfectly well. It was decided then, through the Launderers' Federation, to organise the trade so that there were not these excessively long periods of work.
It is much to be regretted that the Government should accept a Clause which perpetuates an undesirable state of things, and I am sure that if they consulted mem-

bers of the executive committee of the Launderers' Federation they would find that the best launderers are not in favour of going back to the old arrangements. They want a new standard to be observed in the sense in which it has been observed by the better launderers for 15 or 20 years. It would be a retrograde step if the splendid work done by the leading and best launderers were to be interfered with by wretched little laundries. It is a mistake to assume that laundries can be carried on as in the old days of the wash-tub, the mangle and the hand scrubber. It is a trade which should be in the hands of the big modern steam or electric laundries, which are more hygienic and more sanitary from every point of view. If this Clause goes through it will put a premium not necessarily on the small man, because some of the small laundries are quite good, but on the inefficiency of those laundries which want to make up for the lack of modern machinery by sweating women labour. It is on behalf of the women engaged in this trade who have tried to get some kind of organisation and who, I am glad to say, have found a very enlightened attitude on the part of the organised employers, that I protest against this Clause. I hope that the Government will think twice before they accept such a Clause. Let them keep up the standard.

9.1 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I should like to deal with the legal point put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) as to the extent of the powers conferred upon the Minister by Sub-section (2) of the Clause. I think his fears are groundless, because special care has been taken in drafting the whole of the Bill to observe as far as possible the recommendation of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, to which the hon. Member referred. The powers conferred on the Secretary of State are exercisable by "regulation", and "regulation" is defined and subjected to a variety of conditions outlined in Clause 127, the effect of which is to introduce the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which means that the regulations are to be published in draft, when objections can be made. Further, that Clause subjects the regulations to the necessity of being laid before both Houses of Parliament, and of being considered there. Those conditions are in line


and in close harmony with the recommendations of the Committee on Ministers' Powers. Moreover, the hon. Member will observe in regard to the difficulty he raises, that the safeguards are amply sufficient to secure that any excessive use of these powers would be impossible. The drafting of this Clause and other Clauses in the Bill will continue to be under close examination during the passage of the Measure through this House and another place. In the meantime, I suggest that the fears of the hon. Member are groundless.

Mr. Foot: Then why is it necessary to draw this Clause so widely for its purposes? Why is it necessary in order to give the Secretary of State the power to make some readjustments of hours to give him what amounts to the power by regulation to make any modifications which he may think expedient?

Mr. Jagger: Am I to gather from the Lord Advocate's speech that he took special care to draft the Clause which has been moved by the hon. and gallant

Member for Birkenhead, West (Colonel Sandeman Allen)? Is that so?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. I can assure him, and the hon. Member for Birkenhead, West, will also assure him, that I had no part or lot in drafting the Clause. The Clause has been drafted in conformity with the scheme of the Bill, which provides throughout for the use of regulations, or special regulations, or orders. In regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, I am not concerned either to bless or condemn the detailed draftsmanship of the Clause, but I am prepared to say that the draftsmanship will be closely examined. On the major proposition that the Secretary of State has unlimited power to do what he likes under the Clause, I would only point out that there are ample safeguards in other provisions of the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 117.

Division No. 216.]
AYES.
[9.6 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Holmes, J. S.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Culverwell, C. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hopkinson, A.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Drewe, C.
Hunter, T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Joel, D. J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Eastwood, J. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Eckersley, P. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Latham, Sir P.


Bernays, R. H.
Ellis, Sir G.
Leckie, J. A.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lees-Jones, J.


Blaker, Sir R.
Emery, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Erskine-Hill, A. G
Lewis, O.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Liddall, W. S.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Everard, W. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham


Brass, Sir W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lloyd, G. W.


Brawn, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bull, B. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gledhill, G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)



Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Magnay, T.


Gary, R. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maitland, A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Markham, S. F.


Channon, H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Christie, J. A.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Moreing, A. C.


Crooke, J. S.
Hepworth, J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Munro, P.


Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Nall, Sir J.




Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Salmon, Sir I.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Salt, E. W.
Turton, R. H.


Peake, O.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Peat, C. U.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Perkins, W. R. D.
Sandys, E. D.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Selley, H. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Pilkington, R.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Purbrick, R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Simmonds, O. E.
White, H. Graham


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ramsbotham, H.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Rankin, Sir R.
Spens, W. P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)
Wise, A. R.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wragg, H.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tasker, Sir R. I.



Rowlands, G.
Tate, Mavis C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Sir Alexander
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Banfield, J. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, A. J.
Hollins, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Riley, B.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Ritson, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Short, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mander, G. le M.
Watkins, F. C.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W
Mathers, G.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 121.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[9.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Birchall, Sir J. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Blaker, Sir R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Barrie, Sir C. C.
Boulton, W. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Boyce, H. Leslie


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brass, Sir W.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Beit, Sir A. L.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)




Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bull, B. B.
Holdsworth, H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Keeling, E. H.
Salt, E. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crooke, J. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Sandys, E. D.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Selley, H. R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cross, R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lewis, O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Liddall, W. S.
Simmonds, O. E.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Little, Sir E. Graham
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Drewe, C.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spens, W. P.


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Dunglass, Lord
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Eastwood, J. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Eckersley, P. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Maitland, A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Train, Sir J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Everard, W. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Turton, R. H.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Moreing, A. C.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Warrender, Sir V.


Gledhill, G.
Munro, P.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nall, Sir J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wells, S. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
White, H. Graham


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, O.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Peat, C. U.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Guy, J. C. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wise, A. R.


Hannah, I. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Pilkington, R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wragg, H.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Purbrick, R.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Radford, E. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Ramsbotham, H.



Hepworth, J.
Ramsden, Sir E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Higgs, W. F.
Rankin, Sir R.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Daggar, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Dalton, H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Ammon, C. G.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Groves, T. E.


Attlee Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Banfield, J. W.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Batey, J.
Dobbie, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Bromfield, W.
Ede, J. C.
Hollins, A.



Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hopkin, D.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jagger, J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Foot, D. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Buchanan, G.
Frankel, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Burke, W. A.
Gallacher, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Cape, T.
Gardner, B. W.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Chater, D.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cluse, W. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kelly, W. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.







Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Oliver, G. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Lathan, G.
Owen, Major G.
Stephen, C.


Lawson, J. J.
Paling, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Leach, W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lea, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Thorne, W.


Leonard, W.
Price, M. P.
Thurtle, E.


Leslie, J. R.
Pritt, D. N.
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Viant, S. P.


Lunn, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Walkden, A. G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Ridley, G.
Walker, J.


McGhee, H. G.
Riley, B.
Watkins, F. C.


MacLaren, A.
Ritson, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Mander, G. le M.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Westwood, J.


Marshall, F.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wilkinson, Ellen


Mathers, G.
Rowson, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Maxton, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Messer, F.
Sexton, T. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Milner, Major J.
Shinwell, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Montague, F.
Short, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Silverman, S. S.



Naylor, T. E.
Simpson, F. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.

CLAUSE 1.—(Cleanliness.)

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, after "week," to insert:
and at a time (if any) when work is not going on in the workroom.
If hon. Members will be good enough to look at paragraph (b) of this Clause, they will see that it reads:
The floor of every workroom shall be cleaned at least once in every week by washing or, if it is effective and suitable, by sweeping or other method.
In the Standing Committee we tabled an Amendment to the effect that the cleaning of the floor should be done when no work is proceeding in the workroom, for it stands to reason that there is a good deal of dust when cleaning is done. In the subsequent discussion we found out that where there were three shifts in operation, there would be no time when no work would be proceeding in the factory. Consequently, we have inserted in the Amendment the words "(if any)," and I trust that with the inclusion of these words the Amendment will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. He has just accepted a new Clause which was much more important than this Amendment, and I trust he will accept our Amendment in the same spirit. It seems to me that there is a good deal of dust and fumes in the factories of this country, especially in some of the textile factories in Lancashire, with which I am familiar, and I think the cleaning of the floors ought to be done, wherever possible, when work has stopped in the factory.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman said that we ought to make a concession because we have accepted another Amendment beforehand, but I think that when he looks at the Order Paper and sees the number of concessions which we have made to his point of view he will not expect us to accept all of his Amendments, particularly when we have good arguments against them. I think that his point is that he does not want an unsuitable method of cleaning to be used which causes inconvenience to the work-people. Naturally he wishes to prevent that. So do we, and we were careful to insert words in this Clause to give us power to intervene if that did take place. Hon. Members will see if they refer to the Clause the words "effective and suitable." The purpose of those words was to give the factory inspectors power to intervene if an unsuitable method of cleaning was used. Therefore we feel that we have in the Bill power to deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
But, on the other hand, his Amendment raises some rather difficult questions. I appreciate that he has improved it. As it was drafted in Standing Committee it would have been impossible, taking into account continuing processes. There are methods of cleaning, such as vacuum cleaners and electrical scrubbers and wipers, which really do not cause inconvenience to the workers. We ought to consider not merely the general mass of employés. May I say one word for the charwomen and cleaners? Many powerful unions are represented by their officials in this House. I am not aware that there


is a union of charwomen—[HON. MEMBERS "Yes, there is."]—or that they have a representative in this House. Therefore it is important that the Home Office should speak up for the charwomen. If the Amendment were accepted it would mean that even if a few workers were kept on overtime rather late into the evening, the charwomen and cleaners could not start work, even though it might really be all right and the workers who were kept late might not mind a bit. How the hon. Member's name would ring throughout the workrooms of the United Kingdom if charwomen were being prevented by his Amendment from getting on with their work.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: One surprising thing about the hon. Gentleman's answer is his reference to charwomen. I am not aware that charwomen are engaged in the factories, in the cleaning of the shop, the sweeping of the floors and the cleaning of the walls, and it may be of advantage to the hon. Member to know that the charwomen have a trade union and are represented at least in some of the public bodies of this country, are very strongly organised and have conditions which are a vast improvement on what obtained a short time ago. But this Clause does not deal with charwomen. It deals with the cleaning of the floor of a workroom and it is rarely that one finds charwomen engaged for that purpose. Often it is men who perform this task. Is the hon. Member prepared to support the contention that in an asbestos factory, for instance, and in factories where they are engaged on dusty work, the dust being injurious to the workers, the cleaning up should be done while people are at work in these factories?
I realise that in these places they have methods of clearing much of the dust away, but even with all this clearing up, by means of fans and so on, a great deal is still left on the floor and on the walls, and under this Clause the cleaning will be engaged on while men, women and young people are working in the factory, dust being raised which may affect the health of these people. I hope that the hon. Member will press this Amendment. The good employer does not need legislation in order to make him carry out this provision. Good employers would never dream of having their factories

swept and the dust raised from the floor, because of the effect on the health of their workpeople, and it is a surprising thing that the Government are opposing this Amendment. They must have been advised or instructed by the worst employers in this country, some of whom, I see, have been making speeches during the last few days asking for the defeat of this Measure.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I appreciate the object for which this Amendment has been proposed, but I am afraid that perhaps the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that the floors of some factories have often to be swept during the process and swept more than once a day. If this Amendment is carried it will be illegal to sweep the floors during the period that operations are taking place. How is it to be enforced? To enforce it properly it will be necessary to have factory inspectors continuously in factories where there are unscrupulous employers. This Amendment would be more detrimental to the cleanliness of the factories than the Bill as it is.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I am going to support the Amendment. I appreciate the point which has just been put by the hon. Member opposite, that in some kinds of work it is necessary often to sweep more than once a day, and for that reason I think that if some words could be devised whereby it is provided that either at the discretion of the inspector or by some regulations which provided generally that sweeping should only take place after work had ceased, that might meet the difficulty. Anyone with practical knowledge knows very well that, from a health point of view, it is not desirable to have large workshops where a large amount of debris accumulates on the floors swept when the workpeople are at their work. Obviously that is injurious to their health. But everybody with practical knowledge knows also that from a business point of view it does not pay the employer to have work interfered with by the sweeping and washing of floors while people are working. Something should be done, either in these words or in some other words, to provide that, wherever possible, sweeping and washing of premises should not take place while the workers are engaged there. I am sure the Under-Secretary


does not allow his office to be swept out while he is at work there. I do not imagine that Ministers allow their rooms to be disturbed by people washing floors and dusting while they are at work. I do not suppose that in City offices, charwomen would be tolerated while directors and others are at their desks. Therefore I suggest that there is a point in this Amendment and I ask the hon. Gentleman to review the matter and see whether he cannot find words which would embody a practical remedy.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: May I remind the hon. Member who has just spoken that nothing could be worse, from the point of view of his own constituents, than the passing of this Amendment? I happen to be in the trade which is represented by the hon. Member. In that trade it is necessary to sweep the floors of the premises every hour of the day. That is done in the workers' interests and also, I say candidly, in the employers' interests. If the articles which are dealt with in that trade are dirtied by dust they go into a lower category and fetch a smaller price. It is a common practice in that trade to put down quantities of Jeyes' Fluid before sweeping is done. That keeps the place clean and is good from the worker's point of view. I think this Amendment is most absurd and would achieve something which I am sure hon. Members do not wish to achieve. To have a place cleaned out periodically during the day is surely better than allowing an accumulation of dust and dirt. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) spoke about the injury done to people by the sweeping up of the dust, but the workers are not going to suffer any more in that way than they suffer by breathing the same dust all day long. I hope: the Government will resist the Amendment. I do not think that employers want to resist any reasonable proposals, and I do not think the House is doing any good in trying to fasten something on to the employers which is impossible of achievement. The Home Secretary has been very reasonable in meeting Amendments, but I hope he will not fasten on employers an impossible condition which would be no good whatever from the workers' point of view.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not think the hon. Friend who moved the Amendment is tied

to this form of words. The statement of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) that the employers of this country never resisted reasonable proposals, was a remarkable statement, coming from him.

Mr. Holdsworth: I never said anything of the kind.

Mr. Garro Jones: Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to inform the House what he did say.

Mr. Holdsworth: Read the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Garro Jones: The whole history of the party to which the hon. Member belongs consisted over a long period of years, of forcing through ameliorative measures against the opposition of employers. Our objective in this matter is hygienic. There are, no doubt, factories which require to be kept constantly in a state of cleanliness and we are as well acquainted with that position as the hon. Member for South Bradford.

Mr. Holdsworth: I do not think so.

Mr. Garro Jones: Unless sweeping is done hygienically, it is more menacing to the health of the workers than neglect to do any sweeping at all. I read a book on bacteriology recently which described experiments made in factories in securing counts of bacteria to a given air space in certain buildings before sweeping had been done and after it had been done. In one case, a sample of air taken on a staircase before sweeping showed a count of 20,000 bacteria per cubic foot. After sweeping the count for the same quantity of air was found to be multiplied 20 times. It cannot be said, therefore, that there is no practical or constructive point in the Amendment, and I hope the Home Secretary will consult on this matter with the Minister of Health. I think that experts of the Ministry of Health will tell him that it is better that factories, houses and other buildings should not be swept at all, than that they should be swept without adequate precautions for laying the dust. Although I am not entitled to speak for my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment I think if the Home Secretary gave an assurance that he would look into that aspect of the matter, my hon. Friend would be satisfied for the time being.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help feeling that the Amendment is too rigid. There are


cases in which sweeping must take place while work is in progress. Undoubtedly there are many cases where it need not take place during working hours and I think some words of this kind are required to deal with such cases. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to add to his Amendment some such words as "wherever practicable" in order to introduce the necessary elasticity. We know that there are good and bad employers and that bad employers have to be dealt with by the law and while I agree that the proposed words are too rigid, I think some words of this kind would be a useful provision in the Bill.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: By permission of the House may I say that we have had a useful discussion on this Amendment, and if I am assured that the Home Office will bear in mind the points which we have raised I shall be satisfied to withdraw the Amendment. I have been greatly influenced by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of the thousands of charwomen who would be opposed to me if this Amendment were carried. I imagine there are few of them in my Parliamentary division, but there are a lot of textile mills there. However, in view of the possibility of the formidable opposition of the charwomen of the country I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Overcrowding.)

9.44 P.m.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "in the same occupation," and to insert:
occupied by the person then in occupation or by his successor in the same business.
I wish to explain to the House the context in which this Amendment falls to be considered. The purpose of Clause 2 is to deal with overcrowding by providing for a future standard of 400 cubic feet per person subject to a condition which it was necessary to introduce that the standard for a period of five years after the passing of this Measure, should be 250 cubic feet in existing workrooms provided (in the words of the Bill as now drawn), that they were during that period "in the same occupation." I do not wish to anticipate Amendments which have yet to be considered but it is necessary that I

should draw attention to one further Amendment which has a bearing upon the present proposal. That is an Amendment which would limit the operation of the Clause to 10 years altogether so that we are only concerned with the existing workrooms, first for a period of five years and then for a second period of five years, making 10 in all.
Dealing with this particular Amendment, the words in the Bill as drawn are "in the same occupation," the result being that the privilege of working on the 250 cubic feet standard would only be available to the person who was the occupier of the factory so long as the factory was in the same occupation. On consideration, however, it has become obvious that these words are too narrow, for this reason, that all sorts of technical alterations in the constitution of a firm or company would result in a change in occupation and in the raising of the 250 cubic feet standard automatically to the 400 cubic feet standard, under circumstances when, according to the conception of the Clause, I do not think anybody desires that that change should take place. For example, if one member of a firm retired, or even if one additional member of a business were made a partner of the firm, or if some financial reconstruction were to take place in a small company, the premises would cease to he technically in the same occupation. I do not think the Committee really intended, from my recollection of their deliberations, that such a technical alteration in occupation should automatically result in the imposition of the higher standard of cubic capacity, and the House will appreciate that if that result did take place, most lamentable consequences might ensue. There might be no room for expansion or extension of the premises, other premises might not be obtained, and the business might come to an end and men be thrown out of employment.
In those circumstances I propose the substitution for the words "in the same occupation" of a formula designed to achieve this result, that the test shall be the continuity of the same business. The result of the Amendment will be that substantial identity of the business will be a sufficient condition to justify premises continuing on the old standard, subject to the provisions of the Bill, for the period of five years after the passing of the Act under the conditions of proviso (a) and


for a further five years under the conditions of proviso (b).

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out:
or by his successor in the same business.
The cubical contents of a factory should not depend upon a certain business that is conducted in that factory. It seems to us that you could easily find a factory in Lancashire which had been employing 300 people. Supposing that factory has gone to some other owner, who then employs 400 people instead of 300 in the manufacture, we will say, of slippers, is there any sense in altering the cubical contents of that factory simply because the business has changed hands?

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
It seems to me that the proposed Amendment moved by the Government is quite unnecessary. What was designed in the Clause originally was that there should be some limit of time beyond which the new requirements of the Act should become operative, and one of the concessions which was made was that at any rate while the business remained in the same hands, under the same control, in the same ownership, there should not be an obligation to introduce alterations which in some cases would no doubt be drastic and costly. The Committee upstairs was more or less prepared, somewhat reluctantly perhaps, to accept that position. What is suggested in the Government's Amendment is that the Clause should be weakened, that the period of time allowed for adjustments should be prolonged, and that wherever there was a change in the constitution of the company or firm owning the factory or business which would amount technically to a change in the occupation, then on that ground the period during which the Act remained inoperative should be extended.
There is really no reason in the world why the House should consent to that. If a business is being reconstructed, if, for instance, a company—and most large businesses nowadays are limited companies—is being wound up and reformed, if the business is being reconstructed in that sense, so that it ceases to be in the same occupation, surely that is the ideal time to say, "Well, you are reconstructing your business, you are rearranging your finances, you are altering the scope of your business in ways to suit the convenience of the financial interests in the business, and this is the proper time to reconstruct your factory, to bring yourselves into line with the new requirements of the new legislation." It was one thing to say you ought not to impose suddenly on a company that has been running in the bad old way for a long time some drastic reconstruction. There may have been some reason in that, and we felt compelled to accept it upstairs, but surely the Bill has enough timorosity in it, enough doubts, hesitations, "ifs," "ands" and "buts" in it, without coming along and saying, "The Committee upstairs has done everything reasonable in the matter; let us take advantage of that excess of reasonableness on the part of the Opposition and see what further advantage and delay we can impose."
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says there may be quite a lot of technical changes which are not really changes at all, and therefore the Clause ought to be amended, does he not see what a boomerang that argument is? If you say that a technical alteration which has the legal effect of altering the occupation without being really a change at all is to carry with it the right to continue those bad old ways, to remain behind the legislation that we are now enacting, look how you place in the hands of the unwilling and reluctant factory owner a very easy means of escape, or at any rate of prolonging the agony and putting off the evil day on which he will have to bring his factory into line with the new conditions that this Bill is designed to bring about. If the change is technical, involving no real change, the arguments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced in support of the Amendment is the reason the House should reject it.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not give way to the Opposition. My right hon. and learned Friend has made the all important point of drawing a distinction between a partnership and a limited liability company. In the case of a limited liability company the mere fact that it is a limited company gives it in law a legal personality, and although the actual shareholders may be changing every day every time the stock market opens, it would under this Bill remain under the same ownership. In the case of a partnership, if one partner dies and another succeeds, that, under this Bill, will be a change of ownership. Obviously, if we are to be consistent, the case that has been made out by the Lord Advocate is one that the House must support.

9.57 p.m.

Wing-Commander Wright: Those who oppose this Amendment have missed the real object that lies behind it, and what they want might result in very serious hardship to the workers themselves. Take the case of a comparatively small business which did not comply with the conditions at which we are trying to arrive. The owner might die and his executors might be willing to carry on the business, but would not be prepared to face the comparatively large capital expenditure which might be necessary in order to bring about the improved conditions. Therefore, it might be that a successful small business which in due time, during the period of the five years, could achieve the object of the Clause, might actually shut down simply because the executors were not prepared to find the capital to make the necessary changes. That is a point which ought to be borne in mind.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. White: The House has to make up its mind about the length of time the 250 cubic feet should he allowed to obtain, and the vital point for most of us is that the period should be as short as possible. Arguments have been brought forward showing that the time of reconstruction

might be the best time to bring about the change. On the other hand, if the change of ownership arises from a death it might be the worst possible time. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether it is not the case that the only substantial difference in the Clause as now drafted if the Amendment were accepted would be that there would be a limited time of 10 years, whereas, when we left the Bill upstairs, there was an unlimited time, and that consequently the Clause will be stronger than it was.

10.0 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: That, of course, is one of the most important points in considering this Amendment. I did not wish when moving the Amendment to anticipate the Amendment still to be moved, but I did draw attention to the fact, and I again do so, that when this Clause was under consideration by the Committee upstairs, the underlying idea was that there might be an indefinite prolongation of the 250 cubic feet for the existing factory, and it was in that relationship that the idea "in the same occupation" was introduced. The matter is now on a different footing if the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend further down is carried. We allow first a period of five years during which there may or may not be a requirement by the inspector for the supply of suitable mechanical ventilation. Then there will be a second period of five years during which there must be mechanical ventilation. At the end of that second period of five years the exemption from the requirements of the Bill will necessarily cease. It is only for that limited period that this question of "the same occupation" is relevant at all, and it is for the House to consider whether, when we speak of the same occupation, we intend that it is to be applicable to a case where the business remains the same, or to a case where for some such technical accident as a change in partnership the legal occupancy changes.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 107.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[10.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Assheton, R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Aske, Sir R. W.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)




Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Hannah, I. C.
Radford, E. A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bernays, R. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rayner, Major R. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Hepworth, J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Higgs, W. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brass, Sir W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hopkinson, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Bull, B. B.
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Joel, D. J. B.
Samuel M. R. A.


Cary, R. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandys, E. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Channon, H.
Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Christie, J. A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Latham, Sir P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leckie, J. A.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crooke, J. S.
Lewis, O.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Spens, W. P.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Little, Sir E. Graham
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cross, R. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Strauss, H, G. (Norwich)


Culverwell, C. T.
Loftus, P. C.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Drewe, C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Tate, Mavis C.


Duggan, H. J.
Magnay, T.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maitland, A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Dunglass, Lord
Mander, G. le M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Eastwood, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hen. H. D. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Eckersley, P. T.
Markham, S. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Turton, R. H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Emery, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Warrender, Sir V.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Foot, D. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wells, S. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
White, H. Graham


Furness, S. N.
Munro, P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nall Sir J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Owen, Major G.
Wise, A. R.


Gledhill, G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Peake, O.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Peat, C. U.
Wragg, H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Guy, J. C. M.
Purbrick, R.
and Major Sir George Davies.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Dalton, H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Buchanan, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Adamson, W. M.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cape, T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Charleton, H. C.
Day, H.


Banfield, J. W.
Chater, D.
Dobbie, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Cluse, W. S.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Batey, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Ede, J. C.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Bromfield, W.
Daggar, G.
Gallacher, W.







Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.
Short, A.


Garro Jones, G. M.
McEntee, V. La T.
Silverman, S. S.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
MacLaren, A.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mathers, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maxton, J.
Stephen, C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Milner, Major J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Montague, F.
Thurtle, E.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Muff, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Hollins, A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Walkden, A. G.


Jagger, J.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Walker, J.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Paling, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkinson, J. A.
Westwood, J.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lathan, G.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lawson, J. J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leash, W.
Ridley, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lee, F.
Riley, B.



Leonard, W.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Leslie, J. R.
Rowson, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Logan, D. G.
Sexton, T. M.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

10.10 p.m.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, after "mechanical," to insert "or induced."
This is an Amendment which was not called in Committee, but which raises a matter which was in the minds of some hon. Members, and that is the question of whether we could allow an alternative to mechanical ventilation. Induced ventilation can be very good. I wish to know from the Home Office whether they have investigated in the interval the question which was brought up in Committee. The Under-Secretary promised that he would look into the matter further to see whether in any particular circumstances induced ventilation could be regarded as a practicable alternative. I am not going to press the matter, but I hope that in the interim the question has been investigated, and that if there is an alternative device which can be used that its use will be permitted.

Mr. Sandys: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: As promised, this question has been investigated since the Committee stage, but I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment. It is most important that the ventilation system should be efficient, and our technical advisers inform us that it is not really possible to be sure of getting efficient ventilation by a mere method of induction

without a mechanical appliance. Therefore, it is better to retain the words "mechanical appliance," which are in the Bill, especially as I am advised that the words "induced ventilation" would really cover the draught going up a chimney induced by an ordinary coal fire. We wish the ventilation of factories to be on a more substantial basis, arid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel Sandeman Allen: In view of the Under-Secretary's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.40 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after "room," to insert "for a further period of five years."
Here is an Amendment which I feel will meet with the approval of every section of the House. It shows none of the timorosities to which one of the hon. Members opposite recently made a picturesque allusion. It comes about as a result of the discussions in Standing Committee, when it was pointed out that some restriction ought to be put upon the period during which the smaller amount of cubic space should be allowed in existing factories. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already explained upon a previous Amendment the scope of this Amendment. In a sentence or two, it was suggested in the original proposals of the Bill that existing factories be left as they were, and only after a period of five years was the condition to be imposed upon them of mechanical


ventilation. Now, in the first place, the inspectors are authorised to insist upon mechanical ventilation at once, in cases where that is needed; secondly, after a period of five years, we make the mechanical ventilation compulsory generally, and, thirdly, and most important of all, we put a definite time-limit of 10 years, during which these concessions are allowed. I hope that this Amendment will meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Amendment agreed to.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(3) The chief inspector may by certificate except from the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, subject to any conditions specified in the certificate, any workroom in which explosive materials are manufactured or handled, if he is satisfied that owing to the special conditions under which the work is carried on the application of those provisions would be in appropriate or unnecessary.
This new Sub-section proposes to exempt the exceptional case of certain workrooms used for the manufacture of explosives, where mechanical ventilation might give rise to certain dangers. For example, friction might be set up by such appliances. Some of the buildings are constructed in an entirely special manner for the purpose of the safe production of explosives, such as little huts spaced apart in order to separate the risks. That means that the ventilation in those small individual workrooms, in the form of an ample supply of fresh air, is particularly efficient. It would be advisable to have this power of exempting these special workrooms used for the purpose of making explosives.

Mr Rhys Davies: This is a new provision, which was not in the original draft of the Bill. Our attention was called to this problem during the proceedings of the Committee. Some of us have looked into it, and we agree with practically all that the hon. Gentleman has said about explosives factories.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. E. Smith: I have sat upon hundreds of committees but never have I sat upon one which was handled in the same way as was the Commitee on this Bill by the two representatives of the Government. They were the most cautious, tactful, persuasive, and dis-

arming pair I have ever known. Therefore a new proposal of this character makes me immediately suspicious. I want to ask what organisations asked for this exemption to be inserted. Who are the people who brought to bear upon the Home Office and the Government with a view to having this exemption inserted? The Bill is already full of exemptions. I have been present at a large number of conferences at which this Bill has been considered, and it has been the one outstanding criticism, wherever we went, that the Bill was full of provisos and of suggestions for granting certificates of exemption. An hon. Member on this side of the House pointed out, in an article in a leading newspaper this week that the Bill is full of "ifs" and "buts." When a suggestion of this character is made, we ought to be on our guard upon this side of the House. Here is another proposal for granting a certificate of exemption. If the principle of granting certificates of exemption is right in cases of this kind, why should not other employers ask for certificates of exemption in their particular cases? The hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam) says that they are not Liberal. I am not concerned as to what political party is behind this, but as to the organisations that are behind it, the monopoly that is behind it, and the pressure which a particular monopoly in this country has brought in order to get this inserted. Therefore, I hope that we on these benches will divide the House on this issue, because I am convinced that this is not the will of the country or of the House, but is an attempt by a monopoly to bring pressure to bear on the Government.

10.21 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: The Under-Secretary has not been very specific as to whether there are to be any safeguards for ventilation in these small huts where the manufacture of explosive material way be carried on. I believe that during the last War cases occurred, in the comparatively small huts used for the making of explosive material, where the ventilation was very bad, and as a result there were explosions. As far as I read the Amendment, there is no guarantee that these small huts will have satisfactory ventilation except in so far as the chief inspector may lay down conditions. That might be an adequate safeguard for normal condi-


tions, but, by its very nature, this Clause will deal with abnormal conditions, even war conditions, or, if the emergency is not one of war, it may be an emergency of hurry to carry out rush orders. I am not casting any reflection on the chief inspector, but in such circumstances he might find himself in a position in which it would be difficult for him to refuse a certificate which may in effect mean having to trust to luck that the lack of ventilation will not be such as to cause an explosion.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I assure the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) that there is really nothing sinister in this Amendment. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), she will have noticed the phrase in the Amendment,
subject to any conditions specified in the certificate,
and I can certainly assure her that there will be no wholesale use of exemptions. Definite conditions will be laid down, and it will be the concern of the Home Office to see that only those relaxations are allowed which are necessary.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I was not on the Committee which considered this Bill, and so have had to be content with listening to the Debate, but this is an Amendment which strikes me as rather peculiar. We have here a new united front of the Government and the Liberal party, and it is rather strange that the Liberal party are not saying a word in regard to the Amendment, but are leaving all the fighting to be done by the Government. There must have been some reason for Liberal members putting their names to this Amendment, and one would like to hear the reasons for the Amendment. It is difficult to understand it. The Under-Secretary has not attempted to clear away the doubts in regard to the Amendment. If it is necessary to prescribe the amount of ventilation for a good factory, we ought to be making provision for ventilation where explosives are made. I could not understand the Under-Secretary saying it might not be wise to have the same amount of ventilation where explosives are made as in other factories. The Government should tell us what is behind the Amendment. Is the rumour true that it came from the Imperial Chemical Industries? We ought to know far more about

it before we agree to what appears to be an important Amendment. I consider that, wherever explosives are made, there ought to be as much ventilation as possible and, if it is necessary to have it in other factories, it is certainly necessary where explosives are made.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I think on balance the Amendment is probably a good one. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) will remember that in the constituency for which he was the Member when I was a prospective candidate there took place a most horrible explosion in which some 15 of his constituents were killed and another 15 were removed in a most distressing condition to a local hospital because the normal conditions applicable to an explosives factory were not observed. It is true that on first reading the Amendment suggests that the conditions applicable to a normal factory are not going to be applied to an explosives factory and that we are going to make the law less strong, but it says
subject to any conditions specified in the certificate.
It really provides that an entirely new code may be applied in those circumstances. That is my reading of the Amendment. It is a recognition of the fact that you cannot have for an explosives factory the same conditions as are suitable for another factory. I remember going to see the poor girls in the hospital and being horrified with what I saw when got there, and I determined that if anything could be done to prevent a recurrence of that kind of thing I should like to play some part in it. The whole significance of the Amendment is in the words
subject to any condition specified in the certificate,
and I think the House would be well advised to accept it.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member did not read the last part of the Amendment,
if he is satisfied that owing to the special conditions under which the work is carried on the application of those provisions would be inappropriate or unnecessary.
There would be good reason for it if it enabled more stringent regulations to be applied, but there are these limiting words, that he has to be satisfied that the regulations already operating are not necessary. That is where he is limited in power.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Take the case of a factory where explosives are made. They are isolated. You might have a small room 6 feet by 6 feet by 10 feet high, that is, 360 cubic feet, which is less than the 400 mentioned. It might be very desirable that two persons should be simultaneously in that small room, which is isolated from all the other buildings.

Mr. Buchanan: But the inspector is not allowed to deal with the situation in the way he wants. He is only allowed to make it, in actual fact, less than it is. The Amendment makes it clear that, owing to the special conditions under which the work is carried out, the application of that provision would be inappropriate or unnecessary.

Mr. Williams: In the particular small room that I have described not more than one person would be permitted under the provision contained in the sixth line in page 3 of the Bill. It might be very desirable that two persons should be simultaneously in a small room of that kind, and, in other words, it would be out of order.

Mr. Buchanan: I cannot see the argument. If his argument be true, that explosives are different from other things, then explosives should not be dealt with here. Explosives factories are different from, say, confectionery works or laundries, and should be dealt with in a section appropriate to explosives alone. Hon. Members who sat in Committee know that we have special Clauses dealing with laundries, and if the argument of the hon. Gentleman is true, the way to deal with explosives is to deal with them separately and draw up another code of regulations, but we do not do that. The more I read the Amendment, the more certain I am that behind it there is more than meets the eye. I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman, that it is not fair for him to come here and introduce this Amendment in a few scanty words. As far as I can recollect—and I was only absent during one sitting of the Committee—this point was not debated with any great thoroughness in Committee. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill left a great deal in the air by saying that he would consider this or that before the Report stage.
In introducing this Amendment maybe he thought that most of us understood

it and did not need any explanation, but it is not what he gives in guarantees that matters very much, but what is put into the Bill as the last resort. Very often these things may be the subject of serious litigation in the law courts. As it reads at the moment this is a Clause which has caused misgiving to Members who sit on these benches. It would seem as though the chief inspector was, by this Clause, limited to one function, namely, to give to the owners of explosives factories a scope not given to any other factory owner.
Even if the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) were correct the words are open to all sorts of interpretations. There is a looseness and vagueness in this provision in regard to explosives factories which we have no right to accept. One might take a risk with a laundry or a pattern shop, but not with an explosives factory. You cannot hand over explosives factories to an inspector in the same way that you can hand over other factories, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again the giving of power to the factory inspector to weaken the regulations. I would not give power to any inspector to weaken any regulation in regard to an explosives factory. I dislike the Amendment and view it with great suspicion. If the right hon. Gentleman is wise he will not press the Amendment. If his inspectors find, after the Act has come into operation, that there is something more required in regard to explosives factories, then let the right hon. Gentleman come back to the House, but do not let him prematurely take any risks. I was brought up not far from an explosives factory and I can appreciate somewhat the dangers. This is a far more important matter for the work-people than some of us are inclined to think.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Denman: The minds of some of us would be relieved if the Under-Secretary could assure us that the Clause in relation to ventilation operates fully in respect of these workships. The Clause in relation to ventilation is Clause 4, which makes provision for securing the circulation of fresh air in all factories. This Amendment simply limits the air space, and it provides that in certain circumstances there shall be less air space.


If we can be assured that Clause 4 will fully operate, then we know that there will be full and adequate ventilation, and our minds will be greatly relieved.

Mr. Tinker: I do not want to vote against the Amendment unless I am sure of my position. If there is any danger in applying the regulations to a factory of this kind I should be the last to vote against the Amendment, but the Minister ought to take us more into his confidence and let us know that there is some very particular reason for having this Amendment inserted.

10.39 p.m.

Mr. Lloyd: I can give the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). The ventilation Clause will certainly be applied in full. Let me state the position, if I can, a little more clearly. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is right, and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is not right in regard to the aspect of danger. That can be dealt with under Clause 46 in the special regulations for dangerous trades. It is not a question of danger except in so far as ventilation may be concerned. It may be dangerous to insist on the mechanical ventilation provisions in these particular works. The question is whether the Chief Inspector shall have power to relax these conditions in relation to these particular types of buildings. I understand these huts are very unlike the ordinary factory; they are not a big building, but a small hut standing by itself, and in a position where there is ample ventilation and ample air. The simple question is whether or not the Chief Inspector shall have power to relax the conditions with regard to mechanical ventilation in the case of these particular huts——

Mr. Maxton: It does not mention huts.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member asked for an example of the kind of building we have in mind. These are huts in which there are special facilities for ventilation and, therefore, we feel that it is justifiable to make this exemption in proper cases and with proper safeguards.

Mr. Maxton: Does it not mean that every part of the Imperial Chemical Industries plant will be exempted?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think so at all. This is a power to deal with explosive

factories; it is not a question of any particular firm.

Mr. Buchanan: We are dealing with a whole factory, whether it is a hut or not.

Mr. Lloyd: We are dealing only with the room in which explosives are manufactured.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: It is quite obvious that the Under-Secretary is not acquainted with explosive factories. I have been in close proximity to an explosive factory for many years and the conditions in them are more unbearable than in any other factories. In these small departments there is the greatest possible need for ventilation and more space. In these huts, where they do particular filling operations, they also require more room for movement. In these explosive factories the idea has been to limit, to economise, space as much as possible, but other developments have taken place, and now the tendency is to get away from the old narrow and very dangerous methods of conducting work in these factories. This is not going to help that development in any way. Whether this work is carried on in a small adjacent building in the form of a hut or in a particular department in the factory itself, the greatest possible measure of space is required to ensure the health of the workers employed. In many of these factories the danger to health is much greater than it is in other occupations which are effectively dealt with so far as ventilation and space are concerned. If the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary visited some of the factories and saw the conditions in which some of the workers are carrying out these operations, I think that they would not in any circumstances do anything which would in any way limit the ventilation or reduce the space.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Although he Under-Secretary has made a very courteous attempt to reassure the House by pointing out that this Amendment would not affect the regulations governing dangerous trades, I think the House ought to ask for a considerably more detailed explanation of the proposal before it passes the Amendment. Surely in the case of the


manufacture of explosives, above all things, we ought to be certain that the safety and health regulations are assured. Whatever the Under-Secretary may say, the Amendment relaxes certain safeguards which are thought to be necessary in the case of other trades, but the hon. Gentleman did not give the House a single reason to show that one of the little huts which he described would be any less safe if these provisions applied to it. As the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Williams) pointed out, it may be necessary that in a certain process an extra man should be allowed to go into the little hut for some safety reason, but the hut would be none the less safe if it complied with the provisions both from the point of view of overcrowding and ventilation.
This is not merely a matter of health or the contraction of diseases, but is a case in which there might be devastating accidents affecting scores of people, because, although the Under-Secretary instanced only the little huts, this Amendment will apply to buildings in which hundreds of people are working. It is true, as has been stated, that there are some firms manufacturing an enormous range of explosive goods the whole of whose operations will be exempted from this Clause if the Amendment is passed. We have not even had a definition of explosives. Are we, for example, to exempt from this Clause all factories in which petroleum is treated or handled? That is an explosive material. Why should we exempt petroleum refineries and so on from the provisions of this Clause? I consider the provisions regarding ventilation to be more necessary in the case of explosives than in the case of any other product. Such things as nitric acid, sulphuric acid——

Mr. H. G. Williams: Are they explosives?

Mr. Garro Jones: I think the hon. Member knows very well that they are components that go into the manufacture of explosives, and, if that be the case, they come within the operation of the Amendment. I sincerely hope that we shall have further explanations from the Under-Secretary before we allow the Amendment to be passed.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. George Balfour: It seems to me that the effectiveness of the whole of this Bill is dependent upon the decisions of the inspectors, and that the inspectors' certificates will largely be evidence as to whether the Bill, when it is an Act, is effective or not. Surely hon. Members opposite can rely upon the discretion of the inspectors as to whether or not suitable and proper provision is made for ventilation in these cases.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member who has just spoken has called on hon. Members on this side to state their position, and I think that the Home Secretary, after listening to the Debate on this question, must be very uneasy in his mind as to the effect of this piece of legislation. I want to assure the last speaker that hon. Members on this side of the House prefer definite legislation on this question, instead of trusting in any inspector who may be appointed.

Mr. Balfour: Then is the hon. Member prepared to cut the inspector out of the Bill?

Mr. Davidson: No. The hon. Member, with his friends, is prepared to see that the legislation will protect the inspector and the workpeople from any unforeseen incidents in the future. I want to ask hon. Members, on whichever side of the House they may sit, to try to throw their minds back to the accidents which have happened far too often in the explosives industry. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) made a touching reference to an accident of which he had been to a certain extent a witness, and I would ask hon. Members to remember that the accidents in the explosives factories in the past should lead, not to a relaxation of legislation, but to more stringent regulations being made with regard to the safety of the work-people employed. The Under-Secretary made reference to isolated huts. I would draw his attention to the words of the Amendment:
any workroom in which explosive materials are manufactured or handled.
We know perfectly well that the huts to which he referred are very often merely huts in which the explosives are kept for distribution, and it is not true to say


that adequate ventilation and safety are guaranteed by the continuous entrance of people and the doors swinging to and fro. For the Under-Secretary to place this question before the House in such a fashion is to reduce the Amendment to a ridiculous point of view, and I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will see

that the responsibility for accidents which may occur in this industry in the future will not be on his own shoulders.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 112.

Division No. 219.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Furness, S. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Munro, P.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Nall, Sir J.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gledhill, G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Assheton, R.
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Granville, E. L.
Owen, Major G.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peake, O.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peat, C. U.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Pilkington, R.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Guy, J. C. M.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Purbrick, R.


Bernays, R. H.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Radford, E. A.


Bottom, A. C.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsbotham, H.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Brass, Sir W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rankin, Sir R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepworth, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Cot. D. C. (Hexham)
Higgs, W. F.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Holdsworth, H.
Remer, J. R.


Bull, B. B.
Holmes, J. S.
Richards, G. W. (Skipton)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ropner, Colonel L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cary, R, A.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Joel, D. J. B.
Salmon, Sir I.


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Salt, E. W.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Latham, Sir P.
Selley, H. R.


Cox, H. B. T.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crooke, J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Lindsay, K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cross, R. H.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Loftus, P. C.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Culverwell, C T.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lyons, A. M.
Spens, W. P.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
McCorqundale, M. S.
Storey, S.


Drewe, C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G.(Norwich)


Duggan, H. J.
McKie, J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eastwood, J. F.
Magnay, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Eckersley, P. T.
Maitland, A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mander, G. le M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Markham, S. F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A, (Padd., S)


Emery, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Train, Sir J.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mills, Major J. D, (New Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Everard, W. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Turton, R. H.


Foot, D. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan




Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wragg, H.


Warrender, Sir V.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wright, Squadron-Loader J. A. C.


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wayland, Sir W. A
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel G.



Wells, S. R.
Wise, A. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


White, H. Graham
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Major Sir George Davies and




Captain Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Silverman, S. S


Buchanan, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sit Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Day, H.
Maxton, J.
Watkins, F. C.


Dobbie, W.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Milner, Major J.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Muff, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Oliver, G. H.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Resolution agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(a) to consolidate the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1934, with amendments empowering the Board of Trade, for the purpose of establishing or of encouraging trade or any branch of trade between the United Kingdom and any country, to make arrangements for giving to, or for the benefit of, any person, firm, or company carrying on business in the United Kingdom guarantees in connection with the export to any country of goods not being munitions of war, but so that the aggregate amount of

the liability of the Board in respect of such guarantees and in respect of guarantees given under the said Acts shall not at any time exceed the sum of fifty million pounds;
(b) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in connection with such arrangements or under the said Acts; and to provide that in the event of any amount required for fulfilling any guarantee given in pursuance of such arrangements or under the said Acts not being paid out of moneys provided by Parliament it shall he charged on, and issued out of, the Consolidated Fund;
(c) to provide for payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Board of Trade in connection with any such guarantees as aforesaid or in connection with any credits granted under the said Acts."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Colville, and Mr R. S. Hudson.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL,

"to amend and consolidate the Overseas Trade Acts, 192o to 1934"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole the sum of thirty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purpose of the development of the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic systems, or for repaying to the Post Office Fund any moneys which may have been applied thereout for that purpose;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;
(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and the interest on any such Exchequer Bonds, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the the said Resolution by Major Tryon, Lieut.-Colonel Colville and Sir Walter Womersley.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY] BILL,

"to provide for raising further money for the development of the Postal, Telegraph and Telephone Systems, and for raising money for the purpose of repaying to the Post Office Fund moneys applied thereout for such development"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(1) to amend the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1935, and to provide

for the amendment of the superannuation scheme framed under the Education (Scotland (Superannuation) Acts, 1919 to 1935—

(a) so as to permit the surrender of part of a teacher's or educational organiser's superannuation benefits and, in return for such surrender, the grant of a pension to a spouse or dependant, or of an annuity to the teacher or organiser and a pension to a spouse;
(b) so as to make further and better provision for the payment of contributions when service is discontinued and the contributor is abroad, and for the treatment of periods of absence abroad as periods of contributory service or of service within the meaning of the said superannuation scheme, as the, case may be; and
(c) so as to extend paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sub-section (i) of Section twenty-one of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, to educational organisers; and
(2) to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid "

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Kenneth Lindsay, Mr. Elliot and Lieut.-Colonel Colville.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL,

"to amend the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1935, and to provide for the amendment of the Superannuation Scheme framed under the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Acts, 1919 to 1935, so as to permit allocation of part of a teacher's or educational organiser's superannuation benefits to a spouse or dependant, and to make further and better provision for the payment of contributions when service is discontinued; to extend paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-one of the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, to educational organisers; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.